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.