Preface

For a while now, I have planned to convert my blog into a book; now that I've written almost enough material to complete this project, I thought it appropriate to write the preface- so here it is:

The Holy [Christian] Bible, or any major religious texts for that matter, are treated as divine and with utmost respect. Yet, if one reads it/them face-value, the writing can and will contain inconsistencies and contradictions. To clear up these discrepancies, we must first realize that truth can only be understood after taking everything into account. Furthermore, nothing can exist without and opposite by which to define it (i.e. good cannot exist without evil- if evil did not exist there would be nothing to judge good by). This particular issue is acknowledged by Paul in Romans 4:15 "For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression." and in Genesis it's personified in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, (all things considered) this is actually dependent upon a certain factor, which so happens to also be the one that determines ones response to the classic hypothetical question, "If a tree falls and nothing else is around, does it make a sound?" If you believe that the tree does make a sound, you would probably also say that good does not need evil to exist. This would also mean that most, if not all Christians agree that the tree does make a sound. Or rather, to not believe such would be inconsistent. (The Bible clearly states that God cannot coexist with sin; In its basic form, sin would be defined as imperfection- which (of course) is the opposite of God.)

You'll find a lot of tangents like the one above throughout this book- hopefully they will ensure that your interest is held. This should be the case since, after all, it would make variety inevitable, as well as allow your mind to wander more freely, rather than being confined to the given topic being addressed. If I were to be honest, however, the tangents were (and are) not planned in the least. I have decided to keep them both as a personal trademark and in the hope that it will provide further insight into my character- which is the secondary priority of this book. The first priority, if you have not guessed already, is to server as a guide to life and instill inspirations regarding the many aspect of life and the confounding beauty thereof. Getting back on topic: upon realizing that truth can only be realized after taking everything into account, we should read the Bible under that "everything" is found therein. In other words, the Bible is inconsistent and contradictory because it takes everything into account. If one reads the Bible like a novel (which is only truly understood when read as a whole) they would be one "step" closer to the truth.

It is my desire (and I suggest it be yours) that you read this book in that same way. This is a natural necessity if you wish to experience the full flavor and effect possible, after all. I have also integrated details about (and when I say details, I mean everything!) because (1) I feel that to properly convey to you what is intended, you must first know and understand who I am; and (2) this book was originally an online journal (in the form of a blog), so it would be a pain to have to sort through it all. Upon finishing this book in its entirety, I would highly recommend you read through it again. I guarantee you will discover something new each time, given that your mind is open enough to find it.

Living Contradiction

When I think about myself, I am quite amused- I see all the contradictions that are myself:

1. I'm a very sociable person, But I have no friends.
2. There is nothing I am afraid of, but I rarely ever go outside (except for work).
3. I reveal everything about myself to everyone in the world (via this blog), but even those that spend every hour with me know very little about me.
4. I have maturity that exceeds what most people have in their lives, but I am only 19.
5. I strongly prefer spending time with others, and yet I spend nearly all my free time glued to the computer.
6. I'm constantly humored by the smallest of things, but anyone who didn't know better would say I had no sense of humor.

Then, there are of course other unique qualities:

1. I usually don't (consciously) put any thought into what I say before I say it, but always say exactly what I intend to.
2. Several times per day, I become aware that I am thinking about a lot of things without consciously knowing what those things are.
3. I get deja vu constantly, and especially while watching video content.
4. Meditation comes natural for me, and I frequently make use of it. (In fact, I habitually meditate every time I take a shower or go on walks)
5. As far as I can remember, I have never been fully aware of my thoughts (only partially aware)
6. I lack the ability to visualize anything, be it old memories, or split seconds.
7. I completely lack jealousy.
8. There is no one in this world that I feel negatively about.
9. Everyone in the world is of essentially equal value to me, regardless of my relationship to them.
10. I am not afraid of death.
11. At my young age, I am completely satisfied with how I have lived my life, and would not have any regrets if I were to die right here and now.
12. I can sing songs I know perfectly without being aware of what I'm singing. In fact, I sing songs better when this is the case. It's usually involuntary, but [now that I know the catalyst] I can also do it on cue.
13. I have the ability to break down my environment in real-time (and analyze it), and I make regular use of that ability.

There are probably other unique qualities and "living contradictions", but this will do for now.

Betrayal

Although I will probably edit it later on, for the time being I will keep this post in it's raw form, which is the email response I sent today. the email contents are generic, so this shouldn't be a problem.

I never said I did not want to be your friend. I said that you cannot be my friend- which, although you have made clear you cannot comprehend the difference- at least in my mind there is. it's very simple- you feel a bond between us, and feel a sense of loss because we have been out of contact.

recently I have found an even more convincing proof that you could not possibly be my friend. yesterday I realized that friendship requires that friends be more important to each other than anyone else- or, rather- friendship is only possible at that point. I believe that, although I have not ever felt the bond or loss, I have at one point had people that were more important to me than others- in fact, many people. However, as of now this is not the case- which is why you cannot be my friend.

you're continuing to misunderstand- it's not that I don't want you to be my friend- it's just that I have no choice in the matter. you of all people should know that friendship cannot be forced, it can only happen naturally. In the same way, if friendship between us truly existed, for me to say "we are not friends anymore" would be a lie, unless we had been going downhill for quite sometime. Of course if that were the case, for me to make such a statement would not be surprising to you.

the truth is that I have no choice in the matter. don't blame me- blame nature. or I guess blame God if you wish. I can probably make the change later on, although I doubt we would be friends even then, because it's likely that at the point I would have no reason for you to be my friend, since that was never the case in the first place.

from the very beginning, like it or not, I was using you. that is the reason why I thought it would be in both of our best interests. If you think about it, after taking away the psychological bond, and add to that your lack of importance to me, that's all that is left, right. there is nothing that I trust or reveal to you that I would not anyone else, and you are no more important to me than anyone else would be.

you also should understand that this is also something that I can not control- friendship and individuals being important to each other are strictly natural occurrences- I could not force you to be important to me even if I wanted to.

thanks to this email of yours though, I was able to to gain more insights hinting at the source of the problem. for example, I think that it's far more likely that the lack of bonding and loss is actually caused by me lacking people important to me. This being the case, the root of the problem might be that no one is important to me than any others.

at the times that there were people that were important to me, I can easily confirm that I lacked both the emotional maturity and biological development to be aware of psychological bonding and the associated loss. to add to this, wikipedia clarifies that most people are not aware of the bond until after they experience the loss. being thrust into chaos and still young, it's only natural that I would not be aware of it, or- even if I was, the memories would be either forgotten, diluted, or incomprehensible.

on those grounds, I think the most likely possibility would be that one or more events occurred at some point that inadvertently resulted in me treating everyone else as having equal importance- which resulted in me neglecting to hold onto my friends, including those that I would make later on. In the original craigslist ad by which we met, I expressed concerns about not having friends. It would be a safe guess that this was the point at which I finally realized the dilemma.

Most likely, I changed to make everyone I knew as having the same importance to deal with issues at the time. In other words, those who were important to me betrayed me, and I underwent psychological change in order to cope with it.

I guess it might be ironic, but thanks again for your email. (see if you can guess from what I write below what exactly about your email is (ironically) helping me)

I have, in the course of this email (with help from my best [productive] skill- which is deductive reasoning. the source of the problem is that my aunt betrayed me. although I did not realize it until now, I underwent change to cope with her betrayal by setting an unsaid law in my mind that no one is more important to me than any other. that this is the case is a bit disappointing though (I was optimistically hoping that it was more proof of me being biologically evolved, lol) - bu seriously: thank you very much for sending me this email (although you had no clue as to how helpful it would be to me, of course.)

if you wish, I can continue to "use" you until I have used this "newfound" knowledge to solve the problem.

if you think about it, you would have never known if I did not tell you because these kind of things can only be determined on an individual basis. I could have continued forever like that, but- as you well know- my honesty does not permit me to have such a friendship under false pretenses.

It's all up to you.

Hypothetical Answers

A while ago I started writing original hypothetical questions that each have the aim of revealing information about those who answer that could not be obtained otherwise (although this is actually the purpose behind all hypothetical questions in general- I tried to make mine as character-defining as possible.) The goal was to create 21 questions, and then create an OkCupid test with a pun ("The 21 hypothetical questions test"). However, I stopped at 8 questions, and never got around to finishing it. As such, I will only give 8 answers for the time being, and follow each answer up with my reason why. Naturally, this will reveal information about myself that I could not adequately express otherwise, thus serving the purpose of the questions.

1. Q: which is more beautiful, a human falling in love or an AI (artificial intelligence, i.e. android)?
A: An AI
why: Because an AI falling in love would be a novelty, and very unlikely. I haven't really thought farther than that, but my feelings tell me that an AI falling in love would be the most beautiful, and also something I really would like to see happen.

2. Q: If you had a choice between infinite satisfaction and zero peace, or infinite peace and zero satisfaction, which would you choose?
A: Although this is probably biased by having already practically experienced the latter (human beings always yearn for what they don't have more than what they have) I would choose zero peace and infinite satisfaction.
why: I suppose probably because I'm curious of that which I have not experienced, and wish to verify my intuition which tells me that the latter would be much better, at least for me.

3. Q:Would you rather have a bad tempered God that you know everything about, or a nonchalant God that you know nothing about?
A: I would rather have a nonchalant God I know nothing about.
why: It would give me the power to live life as I see fit. Although I would want to know who God is, that knowledge wouldn't do me any good if God was bad-tempered.

4. Q: If a deity offered to let you reincarnate and live the life of your choice, but the price was to die at 40, would you do it?
A: I would agree.
why: according to studies, the intelligence peaks at age 27, so doing all that I wanted to would not be a problem; furthermore, whatever we have lived in our life so far is irrelevant (as proven by [a] we cannot go back and change anything we have already done, even though we remember is and [b] the memories of people can easily be manipulated or destroyed.) That being the case, this choice should be taken. After all, I might prefer to die at age 40 anyway :)

5. Q: Would you rather have a laptop that does everything instantly but crashes every 5 minutes, or a five year old laptop that lasts forever and never crashes once?
A: A laptop that does everything instantly but crashes every 5 minutes.
why: I'm a very impatient person, but one of the positive results of that is that I am very quick-thinking. I would want a laptop that could think as fast as I do, even if I had to reboot it constantly. For the things that take longer than 5 minutes (i.e. anime) I'll just use my desktop computer :)

6. Q: If your ideal mate said they would stay with you forever, but in exchange you must not have sex for the rest of your life, would you agree? (note this question may need tweaking to compensate for such variables as love.)
A: yes.
why: Even after going over it in my head countless times, my conclusion is that sex is not necessary, and the reason some people think it is only day that because they are addicted to it. I have considered myself a hopeless romantic (although this belief has been put on hold due to circumstances) but in either case, there is nothing in this world that I want more than love. that of course means that I would trade my well-being, or even the knowledge that I have gained thus far, if I would get eternal love (eternal of course meaning for the rest of my life) in return. Although love is not part of the original question, I believe that love is inevitable when people share enough strong memories- so it will come in time.

7. Q: Assuming you are in your early teens, if a man offered to sign a legal contract to pay you $1,000,000 if you place yourself into a coma for 20 years, would you do it? (all medical bills are reimbursed as well)
A: No I would not
why: although I would be able to accomplish my goals with that money, [a] that would have passed 27 (the age that intelligence peaks at) and would be too close to age 40 (I would want most of my current goals to be accomplished by that age). Also, as The Beatles would say, "money can't buy me love"- in a more general sense, all my goals have little relevance to money, so that money is essentially worthless to me.

8. Q: If there was a way to have any wish of yours granted, but there was a 50% chance you would pay for it with your life, would you take the risk?
A: No.
why: (1) I've gambled enough to know that I'm unlucky (especially at cards) so I would probably die if I did :) (2) even if I was lucky, I would prefer to make my wishes come true through my own power. Although having the heart's desire may appear to satisfy in the short run, most of satisfaction should come from achieving it on one's own. Human beings desire things so that they can achieve it. As such, having that which one did not achieve is essentially meaningless.

Truth

It is my firm belief that truth is fundamentally unknowable, and that the closest thing to truth that can be found is likely to be a middle ground or compromise between all perspectives and opinions in existence. This thought in mind, I have made it a priority to find the middle ground of all aspects of life, or more broadly, of the universe. With that information I aim to determine the relevance of these middle grounds to truth and reality. Of course, there are many different opinions and perspectives about many different things- infinite might be attributable to both. But I do not have these goals because I desire to achieve them, but quite wisimply so that I have the opportunity to work toward them. Now before you experience some unnecessary confusion, let me clarify: In one of my first posts titled Our Purpose, I remarked upon one of the greatest paradoxes of humanity, which is the need to have a purpose. Specifically, humans need to have a purpose in order to maintain the will to live. That is, if we do not have a purpose then we are not needed, and if we are not needed there is no reason for us to exist. As explained in the "Our Purpose" post, the irony of this is that (for the same reason) (a) we will never accomplish our purpose or (b) we accomplish it, or deny ever having one- both of which result in losing the will to live. This is likely the reason why many people choose to have children- the hope that their offspring will accomplish whatever purpose(s) they could/did not; a real-life application of the idiom "passing the baton".

However, I have found a different solution to the paradox of out purpose. It's both very simple and very complex; the simple part is the action- I reconcile it by not having any expectations. Though easy to grasp from the surface, the underlying meaning continue to confound me. There are several advantages to not having expectations- after all, they're completely unnecessary and are ultimately reap negative results. Nothing can be gained from expectations; even in the cases that they may seem useful, they are only useful to those lacking in maturity. A mature person would not need to rely on other's expectations, or issue expectations to rely on. After all, at that point one such individual could push themselves forward independently, and would not feel the need to interfere with other's lives.. With these thoughts in mind, I live my life with a purpose, but do not expect to achieve it. Instead of allowing myself to be concerned with such trivial matters, I just keep moving forward, savoring all that I can of the journey that is life. Getting back on the topic of this post (Truth) I would first like to ensure that "we are on the same page" (Which I am sure "we are not").

For starts, I'm going to inform you of my definition of some words, and explain my reasoning behind these definitions. I make a habit (or should I say "obsession") of not taking words for granted. Of course, words are simply a channel by which to communicate, and there are no set definitions. But I try to ensure that (a) that those I communicate with know exactly what I mean when I use certain words & (b) that as many perspectives are covered as possible when the word comes into play. The latter would be a prerequisite to knowing truth, after all.

Opinion- An entity's personal understanding of a given aspect of reality.
Fact- a guideline created by certain influences (determined as credible due to (a) political status (b) theistic value (c) reputation (d) democratic consensus (e) brute force - among other things. Facts do not equate to truth, but exist merely to help intelligent beings adapt and cope with an otherwise chaotic (disorderly and unpredictable) reality. For example, I believe that reality and truth are fundamentally unknowable, but to live life on that basis would be madness. Not only would I not be able to live peacefully, but I wouldn't know what to do in the first place. I would essentially be living my life "by the role of the die." Few people [if any] would desire such a lifestyle- which is why facts exist.

ps- if you regularly keep tabs with my blog (which you don't) you may have realized that IMO (In my opinion) facts are very similar to traditions in this respect (see Habits post). *Note- this would equate facts to "universally accepted opinions"

Concept- a collection of several (potentially infinite) perspectives and opinions of a given aspect of reality. As you might have noticed, concepts are the "middle ground" that I aspire to find. Come to think of it, this is also probably the reason why no concept can actually be defined (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept )To further complicate things, there are potentially infinite amount of concepts- that is, anything can be a concept. For these reasons, concepts can only exist on an individual basis. (Each person's "concept" of a given concept is a little bit different). However, there are countless concepts that are universally accepted enough to be given names. In the same way, concepts also exist to make the differences of individuals' opinions and perspectives more manageable. For some time I have dedicated myself to becoming more knowledgeable of concepts, in particular of those that are universal. This is reflected in my blog, in that the majority of it is dedicated to explaining various concepts- notably relativity, adaptation, theology, philosophy, psychology, reality, and love. So I guess that would give me a "head-start" in my journey towards finding truth (not that it matters much, since I won't be able to find truth anyway) : - )

Habits

Throughout history, tradition has been a driving force in shaping society. Young people hate it, and old people love it. I myself at one time was passively rebelled against tradition...not to say I still don't, but now I have a better understanding of it, and can better appreciate its purpose. The reason I could not understand tradition is because I was not asking the right questions. I stubbornly focused on asking myself whether or not I should validate certain norms, when instead I should have asked why they exist in the first place. Only then can I evaluate and appreciate tradition for what it really is. Traditions are essentially universal habits that have been practiced for a long time. But asking "why?" results in the same insights for all habits. For example, if a person makes a habit of bullying, "just because they do" would not make such a habit right- and the consensus implies the exact opposite. But upon inquiring as to the reason why they bully (of course not by asking them- it's unlikely that most bullies could tell you *because they themselves do not usually know why they bully), you would realize that they are insecure and have low self-esteem. For this reason, they attempt to make others look pathetic to compensate for it. Having so much power over others gives bullies a social "high", and they are likely to continue with that as motivation, until it becomes a habit.

To truly understand the importance of habits, I will use computers for an analogy: Computers can operate normally without the hard disk, cache, or perhaps even ram. But if that was the case, no information would be stored, and every thing you did would have to be done from scratch. Come to think of it, this is precisely the case with the consumer calculator. Although working in such a manner is doable, it's very inefficient, troublesome and tedious. hard disks, cache, and ram exist to ensure that certain information is saved so that it does not need to be done again. In addition to preserving whatever information you put on there, the computer automatically saves the data that is needed the most, thus drastically improving the performance of the computer. In the same way, habits improve our performance- our brain collects information that (based on our living patterns) we need most, and leaves those things in an obvious and easily accessible place.

There is an upside and downside to this: Because we can easily access that which we have made a habit, we are able to have excellent performance in the areas the habits affect. The downside is something similar to an addiction- in that (depending on the habit) it's very difficult to quit a habit, and after we do, there is a chance of cravings and withdrawal. It's also important to understand the reason for this- the brain is hit with recoil when we attempt to quit or change a habit, because we are forcing ourselves to adapt twice as much in the same time-frame- Once to get rid of the habit, and once to manually make decisions that were normally made automatically by the habit. The reason for cravings and withdrawal is that the brain, sensing possible overload, sends signals to the pleasure-center to compensate, and suggests returning to the "default settings" (the habits). Based on this deduction, it can be assumed that those who can adapt easier are also able to change habits easier- but of course this is only speculation.

All things considered, habits are an essential part of who people are. Nearly every personality trait in existence is a habit; it's hard for people to change who they are for the same reason that it's hard to change habits. The only difference is that most personality traits have been rooted deep by time, as well as frequent use. After all, the strength of habits is determined primarily by these two factors. A few years ago, I had determined that I should "be myself", because trying to change who I was at the time didn't work as planned. Now I realize that this was only because I changed half-heartedly, and didn't put enough time and effort into it. In most cases, depending upon the person's goals, a successful life is dependent primarily upon habits. I would even go so far as to say that when a person's life is destroyed or improved, the culprit in most cases would be their habits. Of course, it's not that simple- habits could not have done it without the help of countless other variables and factors. But still, the importance of this is something worth considering.

To add to this [literally- this is a last-minute edit], I think it's crystal-clear that habits are the key to success. That is, developing good habits and dodging bad ones are a prerequisite for anyone intending to live an exceptionally successful life. For example- an overweight person could have easily prevented being such, if they had healthy eating habits. While it is true that metabolism is to blame in most cases, that only means that those with slow metabolism should eat a lot less. Eating is arguably the easiest and most reliable instant gratification there is. This poses a problem for those suffering from depression- as they will seeking the quickest and easiest path to escaping from their problems possible. Unfortunately, eating is not meant for entertainment (as it seems the obese American society find it to be), but just as fuel and maintenance for life. It's somewhat important for food to be enjoyable (and in some cases- aesthetically pleasing)- but habits can make just about anything taste good eventually, utilizing the power of relativity. That's how people develop "acquired tastes", or how things "grow on you", after all. In other words, you just need to just used to it.

In the same way, by developing good habits, a person can stop worrying about everyday things, and concentrate all their energy towards living life exceptionally...This is why habits are so vital to success.

Confusion

In my Prodigal Son post, I had made arguments for myself that I felt would be sufficient to return to being a Christian. However, as I thought might be the case, it was not. Even though I can accept that it's the closest thing to the truth...and furthermore that regardless of what I choose it's probably a lie due to reality being unknowable; I seriously doubt that a logical consensus will be possible within my own mind. I am constantly ravaged by conflicts and contradictions, causing unceasing confusion and chaos. I have been getting headaches constantly- hardly "peace that surpasses understanding." Perhaps I will "experience God" or discover further insights into the true nature of things, but if God is benevolent, surely it is his will that I put these matters on hold until I can deal with them. It is my belief that truth, if it exists, can only be found after taking into account all perspectives, regardless of popularity (This of course includes that which might ordinarily be perceived as evil). Blaise Pascal contributed to decision theory with Pascal's Wager. Of course there were criticisms, notably by Voltaire, and one of the primary reasons was the possibility that God actually rewards disbelief and punishes belief- which is (of course) an inversion of the original wager. The premise is that "blindly" taking anything on faith could be characteristic of being morally lazy, irresponsible, and untrustworthy (among other things). If I were to be honest with myself, this would be closest to what I myself believe- which is likely why the conflicts of logic are causing so much trouble for me.

For a being to be our God, he must of course have common sense. So, assuming that God exists, he would not blame us for not believing in him, since, like it or not, that belief would be intrinsically irrelevant anyway. History has proven that I person's morality has nothing to do with what God(s) they believe in, or even if they believe in one at all. That itself doesn't even take into account the concern of whether we can truly count on anyone but ourself when it comes to determining the true nature of morality. If God were reasonable, he would not sacrifice his son to save us, and them feel compelled to sentence us to eternal damnation, regardless of our actual moral worth. Or, if God does, then he does not exist (the concept of God would require that God is not compelled to do anything). This is of course only hypothetical, but reserves room for concern.

to be continued...

Irrelevance

In past posts I have stated a few things that I have never had a problem with: There is nothing I have not forgiven, I have never been jealous, there is no one I do not trust, I'm honest and open about everything, There is no one I hate, etc. From the perspective of the vast majority of people, such things are amazing, so much that they are unbelievable. But I realized recently that they do not in anyway reflect on me as being virtuous, or anything of that nature. This is because the only reason I am able to have such qualities is because they are irrelevant. Specifically, the perspectives I have on life make such a lifestyle only natural. I see condemnation, jealousy, hate, distrust, dishonesty, and anonymity as unproductive. Furthermore, I have no problem whatsoever maintaining them- or, rather...There is no reason to do otherwise. When I consider that- ultimately, people cannot help what they do- there is nothing that needs forgiveness. In other words, the truth is- I have never forgiven anyone- because there has never been anyone I needed to forgive. Nor would it actually matter if I forgave anyone.

Take this into account- most of the time people apologize they do not actually regret what they did, and if they did regret- it would be disrespectful to the person they troubled. The reason for this is because, in an of itself, regret is exclusively negative, and as such, nothing good can come out of it. To make use of classic wisdom, "Two wrongs don't make a right"- and as far as I can tell, regret can only be wrong. *Note that there is a big difference between regret and repentance. Inversely, There are plenty of people that regret even though they do not say so...It's likely that most people regret many things in their life- and as such, it's only natural that the vast majority of regrets in this world go unsaid. On that note, there is nothing at all that I regret, although this is mainly because I know regret is foolish due to its vain nature. for more information on why I do not think anyone needs to be forgiven, see Evil

To be continued...

Prodigal Son

About a week ago, I had the best phone conversation in my life. My dad had told me that this guy named Pastor Ken could give very influential arguments about the validity of Christianity- so naturally, I wanted to put that to the test. I was confident that my arguments were essentially flawless, and that confidence did not fade in the least until our conversation was drawing to an end. But some time after, I began to realize that he had influenced my thoughts without me being aware of it. This new development disturbed my mind greatly, and so I decided to, after a year or so of agnosticism, reevaluate my status in regards to Christianity- or, more accurately, the Bible.

(Note- everything written below this line is original thought, with little to no influence from Pastor Ken)

The truth is that I did not renounce Christianity because I wanted to, but because I needed to. Specifically, it conflicted with my highest normal value, which is- of course- honesty. Modern interpretations of the Bible clearly contradict, and are inconsistent in more ways than one- as well as having views of morality that could easily be considered evil, if one were to look at it face-value, and without religious bias. Arguments that I have had for this can be found in Theistic Imperfection, true tribulations, and Ranting About Christianity. If measured based on a traditional interpretation (which would be essentially reading the Bible literally), God's word is destine to appear to not only contradict but undermine itself- which would clearly invalidate whatever worth it would have otherwise- at least concerning whether or not it is the word of God. For these reasons, I renounced Christianity; after all, I cannot bear to lie to myself. But (apparently) after thinking things over, I become aware of many important things:

The Bible presents itself on the premise that God in his Greatness cannot in any way be imagined by finite beings such as ourself. This is only natural, as God is inherently infinite. That being the case, no part of him can be presented to us literally while maintaining accuracy- actually, it would be quite the opposite. My reasoning for this, is because every word he speaks have infinite underlying knowledge, wisdom, and insights backing it- in accordance with he nature. This being the case, there is probably a never-ending stream of wisdom and understanding floating around in dormant state, just waiting to be discovered. Keeping this in mind, anyone who would stereotype God's word into a few select meanings that "sound right" could be considered conceited in that way- considering that, even as God's children, we are still "only human"- we have limitations and make mistakes.

Therefore, with respect to our God's infinite nature, the Bible should be interpreted using methods that "reach to the heavens" in their potential. In other words, the utilization of metaphors (which ironically- I just used in the line above) Metaphorical interpretations truly are infinite- especially when one considers the capacity of metaphors to compliment each other ceaselessly. Extremes can be easily compromised when metaphor come into play. For example, even though (when read literally) God contradicts himself several times over, this would only be evident face value. Take the same passages and reevaluate them using a metaphorical interpretation- and another possibility would surface than can prove just as obvious; It might be that he appears to contradict himself to endow wisdom and illustrate concepts for us, and likely giving certain values an emphasis by means of hyperbolizing. It isn't too unlikely that God would require such methods, when we consider how we compare to him in terms of potential. In the same way, all of the contradictions, inconsistencies, and conflicts of morality can stay within reasonable bounds metaphorically; this would most definitely not be the case if the Bible was taken literally.

Furthermore, not only does the Bible never say anything even along the lines of (i.e.) "The word of God should only/must be interpreted literally"; but throughout the Bible, metaphors are greatly encouraged. All of the Books Of Wisdom are "chalk-full" of metaphors, and Jesus himself regularly told Parables- which took the form of elaborate metaphors, "to convey spiritual and moral matters." Although I can't remember offhand, several verses of the Bible I read collectively presented the idea that "It is God's desire that each of his children interpret his word in their own way. In this fashion, each will discover a piece of his great wisdom, and his glory will penetrate the hearts of all those who seek to find it, if only just a glimpse." (I made that up from scratch, sounds cool, doesn't it?)

Another thing to consider is that- just as our human limitations would not afford us the ability to accurately understand God's Word face-value...in the same way, we cannot even begin to grasp his motives and master plan. For that reason, we have no right to judge whether or not God is good or evil, or whether or not he makes mistakes. In reality, as the creator of all things, God cannot do "evil", as it would not even be wrong for someone to destroy their creations (that's common sense- and that's about the worst God can do). But even if he could do evil, that should be irrelevant to us. We are his creations, and as such should do his will to the best of out ability. Because he is who he is, for us to even attempt to judge his character would amount to Blasphemy. Regardless of the means, ends, or anything in-between, "that he willed it" is that that is necessary for it to be good. If the Bible is to be interpreted metaphorically (at this point a "given"), The bulk of this post would imply that, other than going in the same general direction, everyone has, or could potentially have a different interpretations. This would make an exchange of extremes in respect to the different interpretations inevitable- and even might extend to a point comparable with the stereotypical extremes of "good" and "evil".

It is possible that God's perfection may require that which could be perceived as "evil", but in the grand scheme of things, this too is fundamentally irrelevant. However, it does hint at the final consideration: One of my core beliefs is that "reality is fundamentally unknowable" (Metaphysical Non-Reductionism. This being the case, anything I believe about reality is potentially a lie, which implies that it actually doesn't matter what I believe. Christianity has (by far) the most historical validity, [alleged?] supernatural phenomena, and literary inspiration out of any other belief system to date. In other words, it should be painfully obvious that even if Christianity was not true, (from my perspective) it would be the next best/closest thing. In addition, these logical modifications that I have defined in this post bring things to a level that I could easily transition back into a Christian lifestyle, since these perspectives are compatible with that which I have decided to believe for this last year. All this considered, I've made the decision to once again be a Christian, keeping in mind these new perspectives. The prodigal son returns (p.s. - for those who didn't realize, "The Prodigal Son" is also a parable by Jesus. With all the underlying meanings, it makes for a great title, doesn't it? :)

Asperger's

In my senior year of high school (17 years old) I was diagnosed, among other things, with Asperger Syndrome. Since I have been misdiagnosed several times prior to that- I rejected it along with all the other things. I had been taking medication since I was 14 years old for PTSD, Bipolar Disorder, PD, OCD, among other things. Then, after forgetting to take my medication several times (while in the "system" I was always called to take my medication, and so after forcibly emancipating myself at 18 by means of AWOL -nothing to do with the military, although the meaning is pretty much the same) I realized that I felt better than when I had taken it. I then decided to continue not taking it- and, after a relatively brief period of withdrawal, most of the symptoms disappeared. Only some symptoms of Bipolar Disorder, and OCD remained- the others illnesses disappeared entirely. I concluded that I never had them in the first place, and that the symptoms were just the product of high stress levels at the time. Since things were better without the medication- I must have been used as a "lab rat", the medication actually being the cause of the problem.

One more recent diagnosis was Asperger's, but since the rest was mostly wrong, for a while I was not concerned. But my curiousity got the best of me, and I eventually researched all I could on Asperger's, although primarily from the Wikipedia article on Asperger Syndrome. From that information I easily concluded that I indeed had Asperger's. However, after considering that I tend to hyperbolize things (turning minor details turn into exaggerated issues) I backed off the issue and gave it a speculative status. Then, after re-analyzing things, I confirmed that I do indeed have it- with the primary confirming symptoms being:

1. My primary interests have and are in the fields of mathematics, computers, science, music, and writing. All of these clearly fall under "Aspie-friendly" topics, because they do not require social interaction- and tend to go better without it.

2. I don't have any friends, and lack social empathy and awareness.

3. All of my interests are very specific- with my knowledge of the general areas being relatively poor.

4. I perform excellently when it comes to that which I am interested in, while I lack motivation and perform poorly in areas that I'm not.

5. I find it difficult to establish common interests, and tend to engage in long conversations with others, regardless of whether they are interested or not. I also find it difficult to talk about things that I am not as interested in, even though I might have a good knowledge of those areas.

There are of course other symptoms that I have that would contribute to confirming my diagnosis, although note that I do not consider it an illness. Actually, I think it's far more likely to be the next step in evolution. Very few people have Asperger's, and it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that society considers anything outside the norm an illness. Therefore, it's only natural that Asperger's is considered to be an illness.

There actually is a stereotype that is very similar to Asperger's- I might even go so far as to say it's synonymous. You might already know what I'm talking about- yes, I'm talking about Geeks. Well, perhaps not all geeks have Asperger's, but I think it's safe to say that all those with Asperger's are geeks.

Friendship

The 2nd half contains material I copied from an email I sent

Recently, I discovered something very unexpected about myself- perhaps the answer to the mystery of why I have never been able to hold onto friends. After all, I am well aware of the popularity I've had at times, and that I have many qualities that are considered the foundation of good friendships. I have taken into account that due to misconceptions, I've made a habit of only pursuing friendship with girls until recently (when I became aware that certain things were misconceptions- the primary one being that I felt I could only "connect" well with girls. This eventually escalated the the idea that I was a "tomgirl" which- although having some truth to it, was obviously an exaggerated truth.) I've also lost around 50 or so phone #'s over the years- which would include both girl's #'s I collected, and almost all friends I have had in the past 8 years (all friends prior to that were effectively lost due to inevitable circumstances beyond my control- not that I had many friends at that time anyway)

But there is another factor which I think would make much more sense of things. A while ago, I became aware that I was missing a factor in my current friendship. I dubbed that factor "closeness"- and it refers to the fact that I do not feel -from which I had derived from my observations about friendship, a sort of feeling that should be universal to all friendships. This of course is ambiguous, and so I was not able to make use of this new-found knowledge. But just recently, I made a breakthrough regarding this. For anyone that I have ever been friends with, I would not be the least bothered if I were to lose contact with them, if they were to die, or similar extremes. Anyone reading this is probably thinking something like- "If that's the case, you never gave a sh*&t about anyone, and thus never had any friends". That may be the case, I honestly don't know. I guess it depends on how you would define "give a sh*&"- for example, I have been, and am in love. But the person that I am in love with, I will never been able to contact again due to certain unlucky circumstances. But I do not feel any sense of loss about this. I suppose it's very complicated- I have feelings of love towards someone I have been prevented from seeing for going on 3 years...yet I do not miss them at all. I treasure the feelings in my heart- and that's the end of it.

but honestly, I'm not sure I want to fix it. after all, there are little to no advantages to friendship- when I compare my own style with that of friendship, it's abundantly clear that friendship has much more negatives than positive. history has proven that people always treat out-of-the-norm human behaviors as an illness, and sometimes do not recognize the advantages decades, or centuries later. I believe this to be the case with myself, and so perhaps attempting to achieve closeness might not be a logically wise decision.

but it really depends on the way you look at it. I could be friends with people my whole life, and they would not know they are not mine until I tell them. Our "friendship" has demonstrated that as long as I treated you with "respect" and ignored my own stance on things, it would be the same as if you were also my friend. after all, the line between illusion and reality is very thin in respect to friendship.

One of the abilities that I prize most about myself is my deductive reasoning. 90-95+% of the contents of this blog are entirely original- meaning that I could copyright that much without being charged with plagiarism. From time to time I come across information that is the product of years of research- that confirms what I myself determined independently (without any references). Here is an example that is related to this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_bond

and what I wrote nearly 3 months ago on the subject:

http://jbcandid.blogspot.com/2007/09/reality-of-love_12.html

Ironically (although I had not realized this at the time) this apparently does not apply to me. No matter how many memories I share with someone, or how memorable they are, not only will our bond not (mutually) strengthen, but (at least for me) there will not ever be one in the first place.

But even if it is not logical, I will continue to search for the answer as to why that I am unable to have a bond with others. As I implied earlier in the post, I have never had a psychological bond with anyone. This of course also means that This problem has existed from as long as I can remember. Since children are less aware of this kind of thing (that part is not yet developed) It could be that I was "born" with it- which, if that were the case, it would not be fixable. I also implied that this might be the result of an illness. I was referring to Asperger Syndrome- which when considering the lack of empathy and social awareness, could contribute to this factor. Despite critics contending that the majority of patients "need help", there is significant evidence that some of the world's greatest minds, including Emily Dickinson, Andy Warhol, and Albert Einstein had Asperger Syndrome. How I relate to this is documented in Asperger's.

Experiences

After thinking about it, I realized that visual stimulation does have advantages that make it worth the trade-off. For example, they allow people to experience things that they otherwise would not have been able to, and more can be experienced in a shorter time too- as well as costing a lot less money. This is ironic, because not too long ago I believed that a person would save money by cutting it off. I did not consider this important factor. Perhaps this is why I was able to write more blog material while watching anime (If you haven't noticed the sudden "slump" in material, you're either new or really dull). Also to consider is that the world is currently trying to convert over education to a more electronic and interactive style- so the need to read books may not last long. This is not to say that we do not need to read books- and so I think it's important to maintain a balance between the two.

As I write in my blog, I learn new things. An inevitable consequence of this is the contradiction of ideas, so to preserve those that were revised, I have tried to blend them together, in a similar fashion to how a color spectrum fades between colors in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to determine where one color ends and the other begins.


to be continued...!

Addiction

note- this post is copied from part of another post at my blog http://venerable-academy.blogspot.com/

Because electronic entertainment is a higher form of brain stimulation, it dramatically decreases motivation to do activities that riside in the lower domains, [of stimulation] which naturally include reading books. Because the vast majority of education, and especially of academics is reading, this has become a widespread problem, hindering children and adults alike from reacher their true potential. Even academics aside, electronic entertainment is far less refreshing than the older, or "venerable" as I will call it, methods. With the rise of the TV and radio, people have forgotten that they received equal, if not greater entertainment prior to this, and raised their children to believe that this new way was the best way of life. The truth of the matter is- not only do bookworms watch TV/movies and listen to music less, but vice-versa also. Electronic entertainment has effects similar to that of narcotics, in that they are addicting, eventually have negative effects that outweigh the good, and have withdrawal symptoms for those trying to quit. It would be a reasonable assumption that the longer the addiction, the more difficult it is to quit- as well as the greater the withdrawal symptoms.

Sometime after entering high school, my grades declined, despite being a "straight-A" student prior to that. Confused as to the reason of the difficulties, I have thought of many possible factors, but it's likely the primary factor was my hightened interest in computers, and electronic entertainment in general. Since the start of high school, my interest in electronic entertainment steadily increased- and as result I was barely able to make it through high school. After high school, I spent over 1 1/2 years doing absolutely nothing but electronic entertainment, and of that mostly visual media (TV shows and movies). Halfway through that time, I decided to start reading again, and was shocked and frustrated when I discovered I was unable to read more than a few sentences without loosing my train of thought, and the interest that I had my whole life in books had completely disappeared. I desperately looked for reasons for this, and finally I uncovered the truth, which brings us to the current state of things. As of now, I am "fasting" from this addiction, and I must say the withdrawal symptoms have been very difficult. I've spent much of time depressed, and having constant cravings. But hopefully, I believe the worst is over, and I can begin doing things "the right way".

Last night, I realized that it would do the world a lot of good to know these things. Not only would this knowledge foster and promote academics and general education, but [as a bonus] would help people save a lot on the electric bill and overall entertainment expenses. I look forward to and welcome all new supporters and members of this cause- let's work together to build a new community.

Psychology

This has got to be the coldest winter I have experienced to date, and as I went for a midnight stroll (literally) I was burning all over from the cold air. Then I realized than if my theories were correct, I should be able to turn that pain into pleasure just by thinking about it. So I concentrated hard on the belief that my pain is actually pleasure, and it become so. No, this is not a joke, or a lie. I believe that if any person wills it strong enough, any person can take on any personality, and live their life any way. If anyone has had this knowledge during the course their life, then they have no excuse for what their life will become at the end. And apparently this knowledge has been distributed for thousands of years in the most popular book in human history, the Bible. James 4:17 NKJV "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin"
When I first read this verse, I interpreted it as "refusing to do good is just as bad as doing evil", but I now realize this goes well beyond that. In its entirety, a more correct translation would be "He who has a good idea of what perfection is, but does not actively work toward it, is committing sin through his blatant omission of action." -well, something like that.

Criminals and those suffering from mental illnesses also have no excuse, because it is clear (at least to me) that with enough perseverance, anyone can change their lives to become "the perfect person". James seems to have known this truth. (to be continued)

Racism

If I were to sum up my thoughts on racism, my answer would we that it doesn't exist. But I wouldn't expect you to believe that at face value- in fact, I'm sure that whoever is reading this is far more likely to be thinking "What has he been smoking?"- Which of course is why I'm not going to leave it at that. I'm going to explain why I believe racism does not exist. First, so that we're on the same page, look at my Evil post if you haven't already. Note that in both the case of evil and racism, they both do exist in a way, but just not for me. The reason why (within sanity) that is can exist for others (in this case, most) but not for me, is because both racism and evil are excuses. I don't attempt to excuse my actions with such things, so for me they do not exist. The definition of racism is: "Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race", with prejudice meaning "a bias" and discrimination meaning "unfair treatment based on a bias". But there are a few things that should be considered: 1. A "victim" does not need to associate with those who have a bias. 2. In the even they choose to associate with such, they do not need to tolerate biased treatment. 3. As long as the "victim" possesses a strong ability to adapt, what is perceived today as racism is inadvertently "doing them a favor" and 4. (This is the most important) Racism only exists because there are victims.

Now we'll go into detail on that last. Newton's third law of motion can be paraphrased as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" I'm not familiar with the actual meaning, but for this post that is irrelevant. What it means "as of now" is that nothing can exist with an opposite of equal force, and everything that does exist has an opposite with an equal amount of force. +1 cannot exist without -1, light cannot exist without darkness, good cannot exist without evil. One of the most logical ways of solving the problem of evil would be "A perfect God is not only good but also evil, since perfection implies no lacking, including not lacking that which is evil." Now to the point- Racism need victims in order to exist. If those that are normally targets of racism believe that racism did not exist, eventually those who are deemed to be racist would also cease to exist, because they do not have a target. Racism in reality is just over-hyped, race-specific bullying. So that considered, all that is needed is to fulfill the needs of those who are racist. The needs of bullies are easy to pick out, because there is almost always (if not always, period) just one need. That need is to correct their insecurity. Whites, which in the U.S. represent the majority- see the minorities and taking away their jobs, education, and sometimes lives. The U.S. does something really stupid- they offer incentives to minorities and require a certain percentage of the minority to enter universities and take jobs. This in very unfair- with the most obvious reason being that chances are many, if not most of the minority are not near as qualified to take those positions as the whites they were given priority over.

From this perspective, it's only natural that racism is increasing rather than decreasing, because the United States is justifying the concerns of the majority (whites). In other words, by taking an active role in acknowledging racism (by "working against it") we have made things worse. Although this post was specifically about proving the non-existence of racism, it can equally be applied to the negative consequences of the abuse of women's rights, animal's rights, rights of the disabled, and so on. So much money has gone down the drain for the sake of protecting rights. It's all because people can't take responsibility for their own lives. Instead, they start movements for rights, and cause everyone around them (and in some cases the whole world) drama, grief, money, time, and well-being. All this is the result of people not minding their own business; people who have depleted their pride to the point that they feel the need to resort to blaming the world for how miserable their lives are. It's true that there are plenty of bullies that to some qualify as "racist", but the victims share (at the very least) and equal responsibility for racism, and as such need to own up to it. For related content, see Bad Luck.

see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_US
consider these statistics:
Approximately 70% of prisoners in the United States are non-Whites

and here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
despite having only 296,410,400 people, 34.1 percent of the crimes in the world happen in the U.S.

non-whites (the minority) make up 26.1 % of the population.

with such obvious extremes, any who would still consider the minorities (especially blacks, who commit the vast majority of the crimes) innocent, etc. is quite frankly "full of sh%t"

see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority

asians are a much smaller minority than blacks (only 4.4 %) and yet despite severe discrimination have in less than 100 years earned respect, effectively eliminating racism, with almost non-existent crime and high-end education and careers.

asians prove my point, in that one of the main reasons they were able to eliminate racism, is that instead of having tantrums (like blacks,etc.) they continued as usual, minding their own business and earning their place here the smart way- building a model society.

Racism towards blacks still thrives because blacks ask for it through their actions, end of story.

On a side note (to go on the offense) Racism is committed against whites (the majority) in the United States constantly every day. The ironic part about it though, is that it's racism promoted by anti-racism special interest groups. Every day, thousands of American whites (possibly millions) are denied employment in favor of usually less qualified minorities. This blatant racism is whitewashed with the name "Equal Opportunity", but (in part) takes the form of "Racial Quotas", which is, in effect, nothing but "Reverse Discrimination". Also, for the record: Not only are racial quotas racist against whites, but they are racist against anyone. given preferential treatment, priority, and other advantages, is not just drawing, but digging a line between the different races. Blacks get better treatment not because they deserve it, or because they're qualified, but because of the color of their skin. How more racist can you get than that? I would encourage all of the minorities (besides the Asians, they've already proved themselves) to have some pride in who they are as a person. Don't throw away your pride on being given an unfair advantage- earn it [the right way]. The best things in life aren't given anyway, they're earned.

ps.- tell your buddies in Africa that literally raping several million (and going) women to death is making your reputation worse than it already is. When I see the crime in the U.S. soaring mainly due to blacks, and watch the news live from africa...c'mon, put two and two together...Anyone reading face value could easily think that African Americans are only as tame as they are thanks to the U.S.'s good graces : - )

Personality

There is not a single life-form in existence who is exempt from the limits of how far they can adapt; everyone will reach their limit eventually. When the limit is reached, the method by which a person copes with it is one of the best, if not the best way to define one's personality. A person's true character can only be found in the most trying of circumstances, in other words. However, we should also keep in mind that most circumstances are easier for some personalities than others. As such- this must be taken into account, because the influence of that factor is distinctly unrelated to their inability to adapt. In all cases, although we usually do not realize it, our minds apparently have a logical need for adaptation to always occur. Those times that we cannot, the mind reacts in such a way that is best suited to "trick" it into thinking it has successfully adapted. It would seem that such measures should be unnecessary, but it's likely that this was the best, or only way to ensure our survival, because in order to survive, we need to adapt. Keeping this in mind, criminals and mentally ill individuals are not actually evil and crazy, but simply have experienced and/or are experiencing circumstances that far exceed their ability to adapt. From this perspective, the only difference between a criminal and "psycho" would be their personality. This is further documented in Potential.

To better understand this, take the analogy of a car crash. Specifically, if a car is at a standstill, and another is racing in the opposite direction at a certain (in this case high) speed, which would be worse?- a head-on collision, or clipping it across the side? The obvious answer would be the latter. Less Friction is involved (click on "Friction" for further documentation), and as such the consequences are more bearable. In the same way, if a person's personality is more compatible with certain circumstances, then in the event that those type of circumstances outweigh one's ability to adapt- that person is able to cope better those times they are forced to go past that point. The less-than-pleasant side of the coin, is that a person who's personality conflicts with those certain circumstances will find those circumstances unbearable after they exceed their genetic ability to adapt. In the latter scenario, the consequences can (and are) very cruel- and, contrary to popular opinion, are the actual root of the problem that spawns those fated to be criminals, psychos, and other negatives that fail today's social standards. So with this post I will attempt to isolate the different responses, determine the respective personalities, and supply generic examples thereof. I will enlist the help of Raymond Cattell for this.

to be continued..

The Meaning Of Life

Upon writing this post I decided to make science the focus of my education. However, I am a very indecisive person, and it seems likely that my indecisiveness is [in part] caused by a tendency to hyperbolize anything that I gain an interest in. Science as a goal would be simply the next in a long line of the several dozen aspirations I have considered, in just the last year. No, that isn't an exaggeration- it really is that bad. Following this, I wrote this post. While the ideas involve sound good in theory, I now realize that it was mere immature thinking on my part. In retrospect, I clearly see that I rationalized things to compensate for my weakness- "escaping". In reality, even if I were able to accomplish those ambitions, nothing would come of it- I would still be a "jack of all trades, master of none"- that would apply even if I indeed excelled in all areas, because humans only can reach their true potential when they dedicate their lives to a single passion- such is the fabric of life.

The philosopher Rene' Descartes is accredited with the profound statement- "I think, therefore I am". At least at first glance, I believed the primary implication is that proof of existence only requires thought, because it's impossible for something that does not exist to think. But the more that I "think" about it, I'm realizing that the implications are far from limited to proving existence. It further implies that the depth to which of person perceives their existence is dependent and in ratio to the amount that they think. Proof of this is not hard to find- It's fairly universal that "time flies" once work takes an active role. However human beings naturally desire to be productive. As such, an argument that human beings want to die faster would not invalid, because productivity naturally speeds up our perception of time. Because we have little time to evaluate our existence, we are being cheated out of a potentially much longer lifespan by a fast-paced society. In reality, how long we live does not depend wholly on years- a much greater part depends on the choice of perception.

I have had these ambitions to write books that will influence the world, and have children that will lead it into a more promising future, and finally to live a life that will be remembered. But all of this, too, was immature thinking. What does it matter what people think of me, or what the future of mankind is after I'm dead. Now I'm not saying I don't care, but even if my actions could have a positive impact, is it really mine to judge what the future of the world, or of my children should be? In reality, I would probably be able to better influence the world without children anyway, since I would be free to influence not just one or two, but everyone that I come in contact with, and everyone who reads what I write.

Instead, it would seem a much better choice to dedicate my life to thinking as much as possible, if anything to prolonge my perceptual existence. And the kind of thinking I would do would be to work towards the answering of life's greatest question, which is, of course, "what is the meaning of life?"

We have been left clues to solve this puzzle, which have been elaborated on countless times by philosophers through the ages- and, in this post, by me:

As I understand it, these clues each have different levels of importance. While it is doubtful that I currently have an well enough understanding of the clues to accurately discern their importance- the order below is from most to least important, and should suffice as a guideline:

Adaptation- although this is a quality native to all life, adaptation proves itself as possessing (by far) the most potential and beauty in human beings, who, when circumstances call for it, can not only survive, but thrive as well- in virtually and circumstance that can support basic functions. To this day no one can set a limit to the level adaptation exist, and it's possible that within the grounds of basic needs, the ability to adapt could be infinite. However, because people can face the same circumstances, and one always adapts better than the other, I firmly believe that the level of one's ability to adapt is definitely genetic.

Motivation- Anyone who considers any single person to be evil would lose that opinion if they became familiar with the depth of the said person's motivations. For this reason, although I don't expect people to share my opinion of not believing in evil, it would not be fair to say that any single person is inherently evil- they all have their reasons for their actions, and more than likely "evil" manifests itself when people are unable to adapt to their circumstances properly. Although what is perceived as "good" does not necessarily infer this, (morals vary slightly due to change in times, cultures, religions, governments, and other factors.) in general a good person is likely "a natural" at adaptation, so to speak. But in all cases, motivation is always something of a mystery. The complexity of it of course would make it hard to figure out- there's always plenty of people that "you never know what they're thinking".

Identity- see here

The rest of the clues are less important, well- that and I want to finish the post before I run out of steam- so I'll just list them- still in the order of importance: Communication, Dependence, Instinct, Intuition, Immortality, Dreams. Most of these are explained in posts before this anyway, so you'll just have to check. Try this really cool feature- at the top type those words in the search bar, and you're bound to find something on it. I'll probably edit this later and give at least one link that documents the above words- later.

But overall, to me it is abundantly clear that the meaning of life lies in the memories. Although there are many reasons for this, I first became aware of the relation between the memory and this question, after realizing that when people lose their memory permanently, they effectively become an entirely different person- despite the fact the body is still alive, and person prior to memory loss is dead.

Curiously, all of the above clearly falls under psychology, so if my life aspiration is indeed to uncover the meaning of life, majoring in psychology would be best, especially since I do have a strong interest in it, as well as the subject itself plays on my strengths. Despite having never formally studying it, I have a very accurate understanding of it. Perhaps I am once again hyperbolizing things- but hopefully that is not the case.

Fragility

Human beings are fragile by nature, in that we must always be dependent on something. In my Maturity post, I announced my aspiration to become independent, but that was only to a reasonable extent- it's impossible for humans to ever become completely independent. This is especially noticeable when depression occurs, because the simplest things can relieve it, if only for moments. We can feel better after taking a shower, after eating, or meeting our other needs. Why should we need such things to feel better? After thinking about it- someone might ask me, why not?- Well I guess perhaps I'm having too high of expectations, but this one thing is the only thing I can think of that I do not like about humans. Everything else is beautiful- but the beauty in this quality is stolen away by the sheer pathetic nature of it. Perhaps this is the evidence of God- reminding us that without him we are nothing. Not that I believe in God- this is just for the sake of argument. I have thought that perhaps this might be a good thing- when I consider that having need for so many things promotes structure- allowing for smooth adaptations. But there is too many flaws in that, when I consider the many side affects of the myriad of needs that actually stifle these things. I could also be that many of these things are only needed because we were brought up to need them- in which case only society is to blame. But I'm not willing to put that to the test.

Diversity

note to self- this post is about the importance of achieving knowledge based on my philosophy that truth is fundamentally unknowable, but that the closest thing to truth would be a balance and compromise between all perspectives in existence- all of coursed weighed and tied into my current concept of life. by doing this I will have the most accurate idea.

update- extend by adding relevance to reality (i.e. nature is infinitely diverse- we should follow its example.)

+ diversity reduces risk- which is why even the lowest levels of evolution still exist- that and also balance, which is another major merit of diversity.

*just to let anyone else know, this is not the actual post...the truth is I have something of an idea- and I don't want to forget it- so I'm reminding myself here.

Security

As part of my journey to perfecting my social character, I first started by going over "what women want" (the average women anyway)- and it just so happens that I have a fairly good idea- surprisingly. Although I have not even had one girlfriend, I have been compulsively browsing, creating, and responding to craigslist ads and free online dating profiles. Having realized that it was not working, I gave up- and assumed that the hundreds of related ads were no more than a waste of time. But it seems that now I can put that to good use. From those ads, there are qualities emphasized universally, and as such I can consider them as a reliable standard of what women. I know this may sound stereotypical, but as I went over these different qualities I realized that most of them originate from a need for security. It appears that most women need security more than anything- and due to past relationships, are metaphorically "starving" for it. As such- filling this gap would be a great way for me to get a girlfriend- the rest would lie in mutual commitment, passion, and other factors that should develop naturally over time.

For clarity, in addition to naming these qualities I will define and state the reasons why each of them are excellent ways by which to get the attention of a woman I'm interested in, and also get her interested in me.

Humor: This is the one that I see the most- women like guys with humor for many reasons- first, it gets rid of the awkwardness associated especially with dating, and it allows women to be themselves. Humor usually makes women feel like they're a better person around that person (as long as the humor is good-natured of course). It also allows them to forget about all other concerns and enjoy things in the moment, and "feel young again." It also allows both to be more open with each other- which stimulates that which (for women) is one of the most important elements of socialization- intimacy. For these reasons, humor might be considered one of the most crucial qualities when it comes to dating- especially initially.

Adventurous: This quality has a lot of advantages that humor has- such as the youthfulness and ability to eliminate awkwardness, but the real benefits lie in the excitement and romantic atmosphere involved. In addition, it inspires creativity and instills a mutual sense of power- which in addition to giving off a social high adds (to women) the much-needed overall security. The best benefit of an adventurous person is probably a constant influx of passion.

Organization: Women like guys that have organized lives and clean rooms, because it's usually a sure-sign of structure in their life. As such, the can be expected to have structured lives and be fairly predictable- which, for people with a need for security and deficiency thereof- is a very good thing. As a bonus- guys with the quality as usually very reliable.

Independent: Every time they enter a relationship- women know they are taking a risk. Regardless of how trusting they are- everyone, guys and girls, know that there's always a chance their lover is lying to them, perhaps about everything. So knowing that a guy is financially, emotionally, and socially independent enough without herself would be a major comfort to a women- because a guy having reached that level of maturity would have no reason to use them, or consume resources without even the guarantee of paying them back. Women recognize that, and so decisively avoid guys that have not reached a certain level of independence, even going so far as to date guys several years older than them, sometimes solely for this reason.

Confident: Although this is a big deal to girls- confidence is prized in most fields of life- and with good reason. Confidence makes others feel comfortable putting their trust in those with this quality. Not only is it a quality that for psychological purposes is inherently appealing, But it actually does increase the performance of those having it, regardless of actual skill, experience, or intelligence. It's a safe bet that improvisation can only be done by a confident person- and for the same reason a person with confidence is usually much more reliable overall than those without. This also factors in with the need for security of women- I think that in this way confidence is especially essential for males in heterosexual relationships. It is also my opinion that a humans' true potential cannot be released without the aid of complete confidence.

Down-to-earth: google defines down-to-earth as "sensible and practical"; "has a straightforward down-to-earth approach to a problem". Women, especially on craigslist- look for a down-to-earth guy- as with most of the above, for security reasons. They want to know that when there is a problem- their guy will be there to solve it in the most appropriate way possible- they need that reassurance.

Proactive: Although I don't see it being used in this phrasing, from what I can tell women are looking for a guy that can "take care of himself" making the best of things on his own, instead of relying on excuses, regardless of how valid they would be. A guy who is proactive can "sweep women of their feet" because they can't help but admire the power and guts that flow from a guy like that- "carrying the world on his shoulders"

Decisive: Women tend to go for guys that make decisions, and sticks to them. It reflects a sense of responsibility and implies that this kind of a guy has a good idea of where they're going- which makes women want to "go with them to the ends of the earth" ok maybe not quite that dramatic- but you get the picture.

Intelligence: This isn't necessarily a quality, but it definitely is something women want in a guy. It's well known that most people in the world won't get far without intelligence- not to mention that without it life isn't likely to be predictable. Maybe it used to be, but with the advent of high tech it won't be long before intelligence is a prerequisite to life.

Intellectual: I see this a lot- specifically, women want a guy that can actually carry a conversation. Well to me that's too low of expectations, but to each his own. But it would make sense this would be especially important to women, since as a rule of thumb- women rely much heavier on their social-life than men- it's not for show that gossip and women tend to go hand-in-hand. In fact, research shows girls generally start communicating at a much younger age than males do.

As I Go Along

For some time now I have developed an auditory learning style- but saying it like that doesn't even gloss over the reality of it. For the past couple years, most of what I have learned (which is a great deal) has been by talking about it- Now by talking I mean any form of communication that makes use the the English language, but you know what I mean. So here's the deal- most of what's written in this blog- I was not aware of until after I wrote it. Not kidding! Judging from that- my words shouldn't carry too much authority- especially since most of it has absolutely no references, education, or even personal experience backing it. Most of what I write originates nearly exclusively from my head- as is based in make-shift deductive reasoning, and most of what is deducted is further based on things that were deducted from that...which as you might have noticed equates to a one-man "whisper-down-the-lane" scenario.

Well, be that as it may- My findings have been nothing but useful to me, and I would recommend that you treat it as reliable until proven otherwise. After all, that's how all reliable information starts out in the first place. As an added bonus, I've found that much of what I've written was thought of (albeit independently) by historical figures before me- which really isn't that surprising considering that in the millennia of human history- It's near impossible to think of someone that no one else has- even in the field of technology- where prerequisites are needed to give way to new ideas, The ideas spread like wildfire- prompting the need for patents, to officially say "I thought of it first" (even though in many cases they didn't- take Thomas Edison for example- he didn't actually invent the light bulb, he merely perfected the design thought up by someone else- the reason he got the credit was because he patented it first. People tend to skip over that fact and assume that Edison was the one who thought it up.


You might wonder how I could write what is now becoming 30 pages of relatively mature and decisive material a month- even though I almost never leave my house other than for errands and work. Well, if you're not wondering that- I'll let you know up front that I am. Perhaps I could go beyond that though if I were to get more- and as I find that a high possibility- I'll be working on doing just that. But I find it rather interesting that I am able to communicate things the very instant that I learn them, or think them. It does come in quite handy- being able to say exactly what I intend to before I know that I intend to say it. It leaves room for speculation of a more evolved link between the subconscious and conscious mind, but I have determined that such thinking is irrelevant, and as such vain, as well as the unnecessary adding to false suspicions that I possess a high level of arrogance. In either case- taking into consideration the potential of whatever "gifts" I have been endowed with is a given.

Social Perfection

It's been going on forever- the idea that it's always best to "be yourself"- well I can't see how that's even necessarily a good thing- saying you're just going to be yourself is pretty much admitting to resigning yourself to fate- because fate made each of us what we are today. Although no matter which direction we take we will never be free of fate- Awareness of fate and what brought us to the point we are at today carries a great amount of power. I don't believe there's a better way to thwart fate than to not be yourself- so, that's exactly what I plan to do.

Now at this point I have some idea of what the socially perfect person would be like- but in reality I will have to do a tremendous amount more research to get an accurate idea of what that person is like. It may be believed that if a person who envisions a type of person and forcibly actualizes that image using their own life as a base, the result will undoubtedly be "fake" and "unnatural", because it would have been attempted through "artificial" means. But that would be a great insult to the power of human adaptation. I myself am making it my life goal (as of now) to make this dream as a reality; when successful, people will see my inviting nature as completely natural- and consequently, I will gain great recognition. Well, as optimistic as that may be, I would have to work hard to achieve such a feat. I will though- failure is unacceptable. After millennia of the documentation of society- The extraction of the perfect person (in social respect- which is the focus of this post of course) is most definitely doable- and once I get the information I need, I will become that person. This will be the greatest goal of my life, understandably.

I am aware that people have failed to succeed in achieved similar feats- taking on radically different personas has resulted in dire consequences, and is considered to be the root of the unraveling of their life. But to me, this is all the more reason to do it. I believe that those people lacked sufficient ability and preparation, as well as having to little of ability to adapt. But I know that I can compensate where they could not, and in the event that I were to fail and my life were to unravel- I will have achieved satisfaction nevertheless- having lived an exciting, unique, and fulfilling life- if only because I knew I gave it my all. Not only that- but endeavors such as this are a novelty, and the evidence left behind following my death may equate to a level of influence that challenges the potential influence left by means of a child.

Theistic Imperfection

Of all the reasons I have for renouncing Christianity- the primary one is "the problem of evil". apparently it really is a problem- as there is much material by scholars attempting to solve it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

That is- how can an infinitely-powerful, infinitely-knowing, and infinitely-benevolent God be compatible with the ever-present evil in the world? To add onto that, how can something imperfect come from something perfect? After renouncing Christianity, over time, I came to the conclusion that evil does not exist. Although I do not believe in the existence of God (nor do I deny it- but belief is required to be definitive just as denial is) if I were to believe in his existence, it would be more compatible because, assuming that evil is the essence of imperfection (which is how it is defined overall by the Bible), there would be no problem with God creating this world, because it's perfect anyway. But, judging both by common sense and by the repeated affirmation throughout the Bible, Something imperfect cannot come from something perfect, just as it is vice-versa. Even if we have free-will, our God-given good nature would give us no reason to commit evil, and infinite reason to do good.

That being said- I am not saying that a perfect God cannot exist- I am saying that in order for a perfect God to exist, the Bible must be false and cannot be the word of God. Furthermore- since the Bible is disqualified from this argument, it would be safe to acknowledge the possibility that evil does not necessarily equate to imperfection. This actually makes much more sense rationally, when we consider that perfection requires balance, and in order for balance to exist, evil must. This considered, evil would actually prove that- assuming that God does exist- that he is perfect. I myself seeing the trivial technicality of meanings, which leads these rationalizations on a slight detail, prefer to simplify the conceptional aspect by instead asserting that evil does not exist. This is justified by basic deductive reasoning, specifically by applying "If a=b, and b=c, then a=c", which is the basis for why I decided on this stance. This also compliments my current beliefs that neglect the active belief it God...because it leaves room for the possibility that although evil does not exist, imperfection does. This also would rely entirely on individual perspectives.

The above would explain the basis of what I believe to be the most convincing argument against the validity of Christianity- and I challenge any takers to attempt to rationalize the "problem of evil" without contradicting the Bible. The other main reason I have for taking this stance, is simply that even if a perfect God could create and coexist with imperfection- it would be irrational for this God, if as the Bible says is infinitely benevolent- could send his creations to hell- a place he also created- when he could have done (considering he is God) an infinite amount of things to prevent such occurrences. This is further documented in http://jbcandid.blogspot.com/2007/10/ranting-about-christianity.html

Fantasies

The past few months I have discovered an interest in various sexual fetishes, perhaps in part as a result of insecurities regarding my identity. Whatever the catalyst was, these interests, which collectively included S&M, bisexuality, and pedophilia- evolved into obsessions- as my perception of their prominence hyperbolized in a melodramatic fashion. This has been a habit of mine- turning small details into big issues. Some who know me would be thinking "so he did realize it after all!"- because this habit has served at times to annoy the heck out of people. Now I am full aware though that such an approach does far worse than annoy people- that it obvious now. I took on the identity of a pedophile just because I was able to get off to to little girls better. Turns out that in recent tests, over 20% of college guys admitted to having such fantasies- and the actually percentage is probably much higher, considering the nature of the question. But it doesn't mean I should go out of my way to enforce it. Prior to now- I considered myself to only be attracted to those around my age. True I do prefer short height, and "cute" over "sexy", among other things- but that isn't nearly enough reason to "resign myself to fate" as they say.

Even if it was enough reason- all the more reason to enforce opposing interests- after all- I have no future with these kind of fetishes (for obvious reasons). To try to pursue them would be immature and irresponsible, so I should know better. There are many things that I have accepted about myself as identities- stubbornly insisting that I stick to these- because they are who I am. What a load of hot air! I am who I choose to be- as if I could get a good idea of what that is just by demonstrating a few trademark behaviors for a few months! I need to take some initiative and decide what I want to be, not what I happen to be. What's the point of living if I stay the same? I need to get out there, live life- stop thinking about who I am and just find out what I want to be.

But whatever I want to be, it most definitely isn't in these fetishes. To think that I would even consider trying to be like that just because things happened to turn like that. I'm too young to be thinking like that.

Individuality

There is a question that I dread asking, but am even more concerned with not asking it. I know that I may never find the answer to the question- and as such this paradoxical fear is essentially counterproductive, as its merits are yet to be seen. The question is simple- although the answer is so complex that it has boggled mankind through the ages- "Who am I?" Now you may already have found an answer to who you really are, but have you really? Now keep in mind I am not referring to our place in society, or personality traits, or ideas or beliefs...nor am I referring to money, reputation. Everyone has a need to feel that they are special- that they have things that no one else has- have contributed in ways no one else could, and that they have a lifestyle so unique that no one else could hope to model it. But when all is said and done- we are all the same, ordinary human beings.

Despite this knowledge, I still search for things within myself that possess that ideal level of originality- simply because my logic, psyche, and ego will not face up to this harsh truth. People all try to find identities to fill this gap- to put off the inevitable- some, if not most- actually succeeding, with the price of lying to themselves to the very end. Perhaps this should be acceptable though- after all, ignorance is bliss- when we consider the harsh truth. People adopt religions, stereotypes, traditions, cultural influences of all sorts. All of it fake, no doubt- but it's not like people think about it- to accept these as fake would be to accept their doom in a sense, so it's only natural to just go along with what others say, even if it's wrong. In this way, leaders took power by giving people things to go on- the more fleeting the dream, the stronger the cause.

It really is ironic though- that people, to feel special as individuals- unite as a group for the sake of a cause. I would think that they would realize that following the crowd is the exact opposite of being more special- but that seems to be the way of things for people. Perhaps they don't follow the crowd to feel special at all- maybe they're just insecure. I've toyed with the possibility that in the past people did things the same way- but in order to survive, some underwent psychological evolution that allowed for these illusions. False hope gave us a reason to move forward. To this day I'm still unsure how to respond to questions about how well I am doing. Fun, satisfaction, confidence, happiness, peace- they're all illusions. In retrospect, when I think of what would be considered "fun" times- all I see is activities that succeeded in temporarily satisfying my desires at the time. When those times were over, I no longer felt those feelings. To think of "the past" as being fun seems so shallow and fake to me, because it's all temporary, lacking substance, and as such illusions in my book.

Right now it's true I am more on the downside, but it's not the first time, nor will it be the last. The reason I have these perspectives are not because of my emotions- rather- I have these emotions because I have a clearer picture of the truth. Normally I can, like everyone else- ignore it- but now that I can see it most clearly I have decided to make note of it- so that I will not regret putting it off further.

I will continue to ask this question "who am I" there may be a chance I can come up with a definite answer- although such a thing is less likely than winning the lottery I suppose. I have often speculated that if I were to trace all my personality traits and behaviors and the chronology of which I came to hold certain beliefs and perspectives as acceptable truth- I would be able to gain a glimpse, or hint, of who I really am. To be optimistic, I may have something of a head-start- because never in my wildest dreams of a few years ago would I have even imagined myself being "who I am" today.