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.