This post wraps up the series.

In case you're jumping into my blog for the first time here, I'm working on a sort of "series", where I have attempted to throw away my presuppositions as much as is possible for me, and I have attempted to rebuild a framework wherein I can live and approach life with a certain measure of confidence (just enough to justify me in living and acting at all). That is to say, my goal ended up clarifying itself down to this:  "to only allow myself one presupposition -- knowledge is possible". If knowledge is not possible, then I cannot build a presupposition, or any supposition for that matter.

The following are the dates of the posts which comprise this series:
May 18, 2014
June 2, 2014
June 4, 2014
June 10, 2014
June 11, 2014
November 15, 2014
December 20, 2014

On June 10, I hit a dead-end, which I spent a lot of time thinking about and attempting to recover from. A few times I thought I had an answer, but I didn't want to put it down until I had something I could be sure of. I, in my pride, clumsily attempted to recover from it in my post on June 11, but really I wasn't sure how to proceed.  Here I confess that pride to my few readers and apologize for putting up a false confidence.

Now, I can boldly and confidently deliver an answer to you, because I have found the answer. Instead of asserting a point of view, I have attempted to deduce a set of requirements which must be met by any point of view, and then attempted to build a viable point of view with them as a foundation.

So, last time I wrote here, I think I established a need for a Logos. The idea was, "Either there's a Logos, or we can't be sure of anything we know"; and by consequence, "If we can't be sure of anything we know, then we don't know anything. Nothing is certain. There is no truth." That is, within the framework established by my previous posts, we have this Logos. The Logos exists, but we haven't established our ability to know anything yet, necessarily. At the end of my last post, we're similar to agnostic.

At this point, when I say "truth" and "Logos", I am referring to the truth that we've been searching for in all the past posts in the series. Therefore, in the posts following this one, I might make statements that seem circular, such as when answering the question, "How do we know that the Logos exists?", my answer will encompass the lengthy explanations I've already given, so that I don't have to repeat it all. The answer might be: "The Logos exists because the truth exists, and the truth exists because the Logos exists.". This statement seems fallaciously circular if you haven't read my previous posts.

OK OK Here we go -- the meat of the post starts here:

I want to see what we can discover about this Logos simply by deduction (based on the presupposition that "knowledge is possible", or "knowledge of truth is possible"), and by fitting it into the framework that we've established is necessary for the existence of truth and reliability of observation. So, remember: The reason a Logos is necessary is because without it we can't have absolute truth; and nothing can be known. That means that by taking on this endeavor, we've already established that we are not accepting religions wherein there is no Logos, or the Logos is potentially unknowable, such as Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism and Gnosticism.

We know that the Logos must be internally consistent, or else it is not a good foundation on which to build truth, and it does not fulfill the purpose for which we've established it is necessary for Logos to exist. That rules out every religion wherein a deity has either lied or been inconsistent; this includes most of the religions established in Europe and Asia, including the Roman and Greek gods.

The Logos must govern everything, and be consistent with everything. If it doesn't govern and consist with everything, then that thing which is not governed by it is unknowable, and we do not know what is governed and what is not governed by it, so it does not fulfill the requirements of the purpose for which we've established that it is needed. This rules out all religions wherein the deity is impotent, including Hindu, Norse, and Sumerian gods.

We know that the Logos must be observable, but it can't be the physical world and universe, nor can it be completely described as a part of the physical world and universe. We have to be able to observe it because otherwise we don't know that it exists; it can't be the physical world because the physical world is the thing that limits us and establishes a need for a Logos. That rules out a large chunk of the "New Age" religions, including all of those which depend on humanism.

The Logos must have revealed itself to everyone, or else we don't know if it has revealed itself to us or not. The Logos must have revealed itself to us in a way that supersedes our ability to observe its revelation; because otherwise we are again ultimately relying on our ability to observe, and therefore the Logos has not revealed anything to us at all, and we cannot rely on it. This means that everyone equally knows about this Logos, and nobody has an excuse to not know it.

The Logos must have actively revealed itself to us -- not passively. Or else we do not know when a thing we have discovered is the Logos, and when it is not the Logos. This means that the Logos has a will, and therefore has intentions. This rules out every religion wherein the Logos does not have a will of its own, including naturalism, much of the remaining "New Age" religions, Wicca, and most branches of "witchcraft".

The will and self-imposed purpose of the Logos must be self-consistent. This means that there is only one will, or at least that if there are multiple wills then they are all 100% subservient to the one will, and therefore there is only one Logos. This rules out polytheism, including tritheism, but not necessarily trinitarianism.

The revelations of the Logos must be consistent with one another, and it can never have lied to us. It also can never have changed its mind without fulfilling the requirements of its previous intention. Furthermore, the immaterial revelations of the Logos must be available to everyone, in all history, unceasingly. That rules out Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses, and any branch of Christianity wherein there was a "prophet" whose prophesy was false or disagreed with another prophet's prophesy, or wherein there is supposed to have been an apostasy, or else there's ultimately no way for us to know that we are not still apostate, because for many centuries people have experienced the influence and revelations of a Logos in their lives.

The Logos must have a reason for everything it does. If the Logos ever acts without reason, then its revelations are inconsistent. Since we've established that it must have revealed itself, then that means that it must have had a reason for revealing itself. That means that the Logos "wanted", for some reason, to be revealed to us, which means that it desires to be known by us. Since the Logos has desires, it means that it has a character. The above requirements collectively rule out an "impersonal God".

Since the Logos must have revealed itself, for the reasons above, it is very likely that at least one of the major religions has it right. However, if more than one of the major religions has it right, then they must be so consistent with one another that it is extremely unlikely that two such religions exist.


The above list is not "complete" or "comprehensive". It is, I think, the logical conclusion to a world where we presuppose that knowledge is possible. Without the above, there can be no science. Unless all of the above requirements are met, we have no foundation for our knowledge, and therefore can not be confident in knowing anything, and therefore we have no absolute truth, and therefore as far as we are concerned there is no truth, and can we know nothing.

Is there any religion which meets the above requirements? I am only aware of one.

"Let me put you on hold for just a quick second."

Alright, so I think it's time to continue that series I was working on (if not finish it... maybe not. this isn't an easy topic to elaborate on). I'm actually [insert excuse here] so I'm very tired and I might go to bed soon.

Give me a few minutes -- I'm gonna read up on my prior posts related to this, so I know where we left off. It's been a while.

...

Oh btw -- I really miss seasons.

Ok. It looks like I got stopped on point 3 of my outline on June 2, 2014. To save you some time, here are the bullets:

1. Elaborate on previous post
2. Establish existence of truth
3. Establish my own ability to observe reality
4. Examine truths which are substantially evidenced by observation alone
5. Finalize foundation for worldview; draft and summarize.

I think that I established that "something" is true. And the truth I established was basically just that "something". That's it. "Something" is all there is that we can know to be true at the bottom. I didn't say it in those words, but that was the idea I was trying to lead you to. I'll clarify this a little bit more later.

I then left off with the question, how do we know that 1+1=2 and not 1+1=[arbitrary]?

I took a long break for [excuse], but during the break I read some Cicero. In Cicero's letter to his son, he talked about one of his favorite philosophers, whose name I forget, who wrote a great series and posed some great questions, and claimed to be laying out [I think it was 3] points, but never actually wrote the [3rd] point. Cicero spent a lot of time talking about why that 3rd point was omitted, and it made me realize that I really ought to finish this before I die.

Ok. So at the very bottom, where we just know that things are happening, but we have no idea how to interpret it, we run into a paradox. I proposed that something ought to have intrinsic value, and that perhaps we should just "pick" something, but the more I thought about this, the more I realized it was a bad idea. Even if you choose "human life", you run into gray areas, such as if a person is suffering, or has inferior genes etc.. and ultimately, if you're a philosophical purist, you have disappointingly left unanswered the question, "Why choose that?".

But then even more basic than that is the issue, "why do we trust our senses enough to know that we are even interpreting logic correctly?", and the first answer that comes to mind is "Because they're all we have.". This is a frustrating and lazy answer, really. I propose that we can do better. The issue with that, though, is that any answer we come up with operates on this fundamental assumption: that is that we are coherent enough to have generated an answer at all -- one that even addresses the question, or anything, if it even is an answer and not something else. That is the paradox, how can you know anything? Well, you don't know, and if you did, then how would you know that that knowledge was something you can know? You need an answer that can justify itself. The answer must be circular.

I'm here, trying to figure this out, aren't I? Or am I? You might say, well, we know that the truth is "something", and so that must give us some kind of foundation to build on, right? Well, it would, except that it's just "something", and it really isn't "anything".

So I was at a dead end, and I re-looked at my process. Perhaps I was approaching this wrong. Perhaps I was doing this out of order.... And long story short I came to what I think is a viable explanation of existence, not from a "scientific" perspective, since science is nothing if we cannot reliably observe that we exist and will continue to exist, and that our memories of past existence are legitimate; the explanation must be philosophical.

Step 3 is impossible. Step 4 relies on steps 2 and 3. Therefore, we have to skip to step 5. I cannot establish my own ability to observe reality, so I have to look for something else to establish it for me. First, I attempt to interpret my physical senses, and I find that nothing is self evident except that "something."

"Something"....

The answer is that I need a reliable source. If I am just brief explosion of vibrating energy, then my perceptions are invalid. I have to start with a presupposition. However, giving something "intrinsic value" does not answer the question of "why know that I exist?". It only answers, "what do I do about it?".

So then, I must formulate a presupposition which is firm enough to provide a basis for observable self-evidence. That is the "why?" for whichever model of presupposition is developed here; my goal is not to choose from among the presuppositions presented me by the world around me, but to generate one on my own -- which is arguably impossible to do without some bias towards a certain perspective, but I think that I have reason to believe that what I've invented is not only true, but may have invented me before I invented it.

Should I choose to simply say that my observations are reliable, and use that as my presupposition, then I run into an issue: Should I choose to believe that only the material exists, then I am only a material, and my senses are not only decidedly unreliable, but also bear an extremely high likelihood of having been completely misinterpreted by me. My senses must be completely false. The universe is huge and complex; given an infinite number of possibilities, the likelihood of my "consciousness" being capable of understanding its surroundings, coexisting in near time and near space with a similar consciousness, and also interpreting those things correctly, is extremely small. It is staggeringly more likely that I am imagining the existence of other consciousnesses, and that I am one of several odd arrangements of energy densities in a cloud, each occurring multiple infinities of time apart from one another. I'll disappear like I appeared, and there might never be, or have been, another consciousness apart from me. Back to earth, the implication of this is that I have no responsibilities (moral or otherwise), or that if I say that I have responsibilities, then I'm just playing along with my imagination world (the one where I imagine that I have responsibilities), and I really much more likely don't have responsibilities.

Should I choose, however, to believe that something immaterial exists -- logic (here it comes: "Logos"), outside of the dimension and time-space wherein this energy swishes and collides with itself, (if "energy" is even adequate to describe it,) then that Logos must at least know what's going on here.

Ok, so there was that leap I was talking about before, from atheism to agnosticism. We finished step 5 -- the next, most reasonable step must be 3... right?

I thought about this with a silly amount of depth during highschool. I really didn't come up with a satisfactory articulation of it until relatively recently, but now I think that in highschool I really did take the Descartes rout, and I held onto enough of my "assumed" worldview to allow myself to be busy in the physical world without breaking too many customs.

Looks like I'm not finishing today after all.

"Now I'm just a candle trying to stay lit in this windy night"

Alright guys. Here's a story I wrote. I'm gonna fine tune it later, but I don't want to forget my initial perspective on a particular topic. When I learn more about it, I might lean one way or another, but this story has some back story that I don't really want to write outright atm. I would prefer to just put it down as an analogy or a parable, sortof, to get my thoughts in writing.


OK. So there's this baker, named Yoshi. He's a dark-skinned guy from the Mediterranean, he's an excellent cook, and he runs a successful business. So successful, in fact, that he has lots of time and resources to personally promote his business.

Yoshi's specialty product is a delicious muffin. It's the most satisfying muffin there is. In fact, it's so good, that many people who have tried it say that it is the only muffin that has ever satisfied them at all. They just didn't know what it felt like to be satisfied prior to eating this muffin.

Yoshi has spent most of his time giving away this muffin for free, and everyone who ate it got to know Yoshi and was invited to come in and have more of his delicious produce. He would walk around town with a cart full of free muffins, and many people were coming to know and love his muffins. Often people would take multiple muffins with them, and hand the muffins out to anyone who would take them, because the muffins were delicious. Yoshi's regular customers firmly believed that nobody should ever live their whole life without trying Yoshi's muffins.

There was a running debate among his regular constituents as to whether he was the Yoshi who gives muffins to you, or the Yoshi who you take muffins from. Some people who didn't know Yoshi well, or who had not met him in person but had still tasted the muffin, would occasionally argue about whether Yoshi was calling people to eat his muffins, or if people were going to get them. In some cases, the debate became so deeply founded that people began to wonder if Yoshi's customers were talking about two different Yoshis. Some of the people who had not met Yoshi, but had tasted his muffins, thought that Yoshi was only the Yoshi who gives, and everyone else was talking about the wrong Yoshi. Others thought that Yoshi was only the Yoshi who you take from, and everyone else was talking about the wrong Yoshi. It didn't help that occasionally someone would come along and claim to be the true Yoshi, sometimes with some success, but most often without, as only Yoshi's muffins were truly satisfying.

However, among these people who had tried Yoshi's muffins and argued about his character, they were ultimately talking about the same Yoshi, just from different perspectives. They would not even know how to have the debate if they had not first tried his muffins anyway.

Eventually, there came a small and ambitious group of people who took some of Yoshi's muffins and did not eat them. They hadn't tasted the muffins, but knew by the smell that these muffins were too good to be free. So, instead, they took the muffins down the road and around the block to another part of town, where they set up a small stand with the muffins on display. They called people over saying, "why trust some guy giving muffins away for free on the side of the road?! These muffins are legitimate -- just look at the price tag and see for yourself. They are more legitimate and more delicious than Yoshi's free produce" The muffins were so exorbitantly priced that nobody on earth could afford them. Nobody in the history or the future of humanity would ever be able to afford them.

When people came and asked, "how can I get one of those delicious looking muffins? The price tag seems so steep!" They would respond, "The price tag is not as bad as it seems. You can come work for us, and in addition to your pay you will earn muffin credits. Eventually, if you earn enough muffin credits, you can cash them in for one of these delicious muffins. If you work very hard, we will teach you the secret recipe, so that you can make them yourself. However, if you ever stop working, you will lose all your muffin credits and have to start over."

The people came and worked hard to earn muffin credits. Eventually, however, their bodies would fail them and they would stop working, and in that moment they would lose all their muffin credits. They continued working, however, more diligently and with more strength all the time, but nobody ever gained enough muffin credits to get a muffin. Eventually, the untasted muffins on display began to get moldy. At first, the con artists would cut the mold off, but after a while the muffins became so disfigured that they were unrecognizable and completely unappealing, so that the cons hid the muffins from sight.

The people who worked for those muffins wanted the secret recipe badly, and they were decieved into thinking that Yoshi's muffins were not satisfactory. So they worked and worked until they had no energy to even reach for Yoshi's muffins. All this deeply troubled Yoshi, but Yoshi's business was still successful, and he did not deviate from his business model, because it worked. Occasionally, someone from the false muffin stand would collapse and be completely unable to work, and Yoshi would rescue them and give them a taste of the good muffins. Many people who were tricked into thinking Yoshi's muffins were not satisfactory would refuse to taste his muffins at all, saying that they were working for a better muffin. Often, people would die without ever tasting Yoshi's delicious muffins.


It's not a perfect metaphor, obviously, but it touches on several issues that I'm handling right now. I'm gonna go have a muffin.

"We're praying for you."

Looks like Google lost the header on my blog. I just fixed it. I like this header.

I'm watching the Walking Dead right now. "Everybody else is doing it". It's pretty interesting, but I have to admit I'm a bit put off by how there's a cliffhanger at the end of every episode. I assume that the people in the show are intended to represent a sample of the average southeastern population. It somehow reminds me of the type of illogical thinking that seems to be all-but taught in school nowadays.

Lets have a school council that never does anything important -- that pretty much hits the nail on the head as to why student councils are instantiated. I'm pretty sure it teaches them exactly how much a representative of the people can actually do for the people. How about lets teach kids "evolution, but not any other worldview, because we're so damned open minded." As if other worldviews are "obviously false", because it's not like 80% of the world is deist or anything. We can satisfy their parents by telling the kids once at the beginning of class, "it's just a theory.", and following up with, "just like germ theory, and the cardiorespiratory theory, and the theory of gravity.". Because all theories have equal merit, and our closed-mindedness to opposing theories may as well negate their existence.  [I'm not about to make this post about why science is the modern day Vatican; but I'll write about it if someone asks] How about lets teach kids math only one way everywhere, because this way will definitely reach every learning style, and the teachers are not intelligent or coherent enough to look at their kids and see who's learning and how, and try to meet the kids at their level. We'd better hand out birth control and condoms to teenagers, because we've given up on morality and these kids aren't smart enough to take responsibility for their own actions (nobody ever waited until marriage to have sex anyway -- that was a myth). For that matter, everybody has to obey the dress code except for the cheerleaders, and also all the other girls sports teams. Oh and I almost forgot to mention: those kids better get into the habit of extrapolating 3 sentence ideas into 5 pages, because that's what their bosses will want.

I've got the end to that series all thought out and worded in my head. I'll see if I can get to posting it tomorrow.

Oh oh. And I've decided to start looking for a pottery class in Phoenix. If any of my nonexistent readers knows one, let me know.

"Well how do you know that?"

P.S. Everybody please feed Fido. He's at the bottom of the page. Food is available by holding your mouse over "more".

I want to put down this letter written by Cicero to one of his friends. Cicero worked hard to be an upright man in a difficult time, namely the time when Rome was failing. His insight into the failures of Rome are valuable to us now, because the U.S. faces similar trials. There are lots of great letters, but this is one that I think encourages us to stick by our moral standards, no matter what. I'm transcribing this from a library book, Penguin Classics: Cicero - Selected Works.

------------

To Atticus,
On his way to Epirus.

     I have received several letters from you, and they gave me an idea of the anxious suspense with which you are waiting for news. Every single outlet is blocked to us. And yet far from refusing to be slaves we fear death or exile as greater evils than slavery, when they are really much smaller ones. That is how things are; everyone groans about the situation, and not a voice is raised to suggest remedies for it.
      What those in charge have in mind, I suspect, is to make sure that there is nothing left whcih anyone else besides themselves might be able to offer as a bribe! Only one man opens his mouth and speaks against them publicly and that is young Curio. Rightminded people give him tremendous applause and a highly respectful reception in the Forum as well as a great many other signs of goodwill. Fufius on the other hand, they pursue with shouts of insults and hisses. But this inspires distress rather than confidence, when you see that the people are free enough in their feelings, while their capacity for courageous action, on the other hand, is muzzled. Do not ask me to go into details, but in general things have come to this: there can be no hope of either private individuals or even state officials being free for much longer.
     Yet amid all this oppression there is more free speech than ever, at any rate at social gatherings and parties. Indeed, the people's indignation is beginning to outweigh their fright; though on all sides there is nothing but utter despair. The Campanian Law ordains that candidates for official posts put themselves under a curse if their election speeches make any mention of land being occupied on different terms from those laid down by Caesar's legislation. Everyone else took this oath without hesitation, but Juvenitus Laterensis abandoned his candidature for the tribuneship rather than swear it -- and he is regarded as having done a very fine thing.
     I cannot bear to write any more about politics. I am disgusted with myself and find writing about it extremely painful. Considering how crushed everyone is, I manage to carry on without actual humiliation, yet without the courage I should have hoped for from myself in the light of my past achievements. Caesar very generously proposes that I should join his staff. He also offers to send me on a mission at state expense, nominally to fulfill a vow. But the decent instincts of sweet Clodius hardly suggest that this would be secure, and it would mean that I was away from Rome when my brother comes back. The other job, on Caesar's staff, is safe, and would not prevent me from being here whenever I want to - I am keeping the offer on reserve, but do not think I shall use it. I do not know what to do. I hate the idea of running away. I long to fight and have a lot of enthusiastic supporters. But I make no promises, and please say nothing about it.
     I am distressed about the freeing of Statius and a number of other things, but I have become thoroughly thick-skinned by now.  I wish you were here -- I long for you to be. Then I should not feel so short of advice or consolation. Hold yourself ready to fly to me if I call for you.
(Att. II, 18)

Rome, June or July 59B.C.

------------

Soon after this, political gangsters effectively made it impossible for Cicero to continue living in Greece. Cicero fled, and his relationship with his wife soon diminished, as she wished him to be more sympathetic to Caesar. While he was gone, his land was seized, his house was raided and destroyed, and he ended up divorcing his wife and never remarrying. Nonetheless, he continued writing influential letters, and his philosophizing soon became what is now a potentially invaluable resource for American Citizens who wish to understand why America is failing, what America's future looks like at present course, and what power is held by individuals to recover it.

I want to encourage my few (if any at all) readers to study the collapse of Rome and consider how immorality and corruption played a crucial role in it's demise, and pick up Cicero and read what he had to say about it.

"A stone is only a stone as long as it is left unturned."

The past few weeks I've been paying attention to current events...

I'm not about to rant about how the left is evil and stupid, or how the right is evil and greedy. You already have an opinion, and if you don't then perhaps you should get one.

But what does that mean, "getting an opinion"? Wading through an ocean of mud slung from "right" to "left" and "left" to "right". These "wings" appear to be full of people who are somehow convinced that the leaders on the opposite side of the spectrum have no single thought for the good of America. Our mainstream news is all but **completely useless**. I very rarely see a clear article come from them which I cannot, by deeper investigation, find to be grossly misleading. That includes FOX, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, and even BBC and RT, all of them. (...Although, BBC and RT are somewhat more useful when taken in perspective, because they give their own country's spin, which is bound to be different from the U.S. news.).  Even Reddit is difficult to sift through, because many of the opinions are based on what people have seen in the news or on Reddit. I tried getting information directly from "leak" sites, but honestly there's so much there that it's hard to sift through it, and I don't have the attention span for it most of the time. I've looked into Twitter, but that just seems like such a trap. Whenever I feel like I'm getting close to the point where I can "watch Twitter feeds" on a regular basis, I get depressed and frustrated with myself because... because... Twitter is so lame... And so is Vine. They're all just copies of the same damned meta. Facebook, Vine, YouTube, Twitter, etc.; they are all pretty much the exact same thing, only with different limitations. Really, though, is there anything that any of the aforementioned sites can do that Google+ can't do and more? But Google is hardly trustworthy. They talk so loudly about internet freedom and neutrality, but yet they bought up Twitch and are muting old videos which had songs playing in them. They wrote the software that China uses to keep their own people uninformed! Who decided that an uninformed population was good for anyone!? If the people are knowledgeable, then they are able to protect themselves from an evil government, domestic or foreign, and with that protection also comes security in their freedoms. There is absolutely no bad that can come from the truth, only good can come from it -- it's just that initial pain that people are afraid of when they have told too many lies. Telling the truth after a lie is like changing a bandage that's been on for too long. It hurts, but if you don't do it your skin is going to start to stink and eventually rot.

All that to say, getting an opinion is difficult because evil people have manipulated stupid people into thinking that it's better to remain stupid, and to keep as many others stupid as possible. That said, suppose you stumble onto the truth in the midst of the current state of affairs. Well, by knowing the truth you become disillusioned; by understanding the truth, you become trapped in a world where your likelihood of making it better is small; and by telling the truth you offend everyone. The truth doesn't set you free on earth; it sets you free in death.

What's the point, then? If I can't make a difference, why try? Seems like we should all just try hard to get rich, and if we begin to fail, commit suicide. Well, as we can see by simply looking at internet news and listening to the radio, celebrities fall into 2 categories: those who are terribly depressed and show it, and those who are terribly depressed and hide it. Many of the ones who hide it are the pathetic losers on the radio who have this incessant need to continuously write more lyrics about how they're partying hard and doing drugs and having sex. Like they think, "if I say it makes me happy enough times, then maybe I'll be happy". Happiness, in a general sense, is nearly impossible to find by any endeavor on earth. Accept it. It's not a depressing thought, necessarily, it's just a fact. You very likely will never have the opportunity to make a significant positive impact on "the world".

Here's what I've realized in the past few weeks: It's not up to us to make a significant difference on the whole world. Who's idea was it to tell us we could or should change the world? We shouldn't even try. What we should do is change the people around us. Go hug that depressed dude over there. Go buy a meal for that homeless guy, and eat it with him and hear his story. These are small things, from which you might not observe any immediate good. However, if everyone was doing it, then wouldn't the world be great?

I already hear someone saying, "But everyone isn't doing it. Me helping isn't going to change anything, so what's the point?". That kind of thinking is exactly the reason why everyone isn't doing it. Massive change requires individual decisions to do small right independently of the world around them. That means that if you change first, then you're doing your part. You don't have to expect anyone else to change, and you shouldn't. Just change yourself.

Anyway. The reason I started writing this post was to say I've been in a really bad mood lately because of what I've been seeing on the news. If you want to end war, just refuse to fight. Some "leader" out there is telling a bunch of idiots on strings to take up their arms and defend the motherland from the other idiots on strings who are defending the motherland. As if national sovereignty over specific dirt has any real meaning anyway. We're trapped by this idea that currency is a necessity of humanity, and so a government to which taxes are paid is vital to the propagation of human life. Is it? No. It's not. And that's a topic for another post.

"Maybe one day I'll buy a meal for someone and they'll kill me. What a blessing."

So I made a small ASCII game to keep me busy during the most boring times. It's sortof roguelike, but without a map. Basically, every 5 mins you have to make a series of decisions. It's intended to be something you can do while you work on homework so that you get distracted now and then, but it's not a bad distraction so your homework still gets done.

Here's the game:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39394690/Business.exe

Here's the source:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39394690/main.cpp

That's my "FINISHED MY CODE!" dance.

Also, this is kinda how I feel in the morning these days:

I don't really like the way they used the background voices in this song, but the lyrics are kinda cool.

"The sign is in the window, but I never clean it; so when it comes to it, I guess I don't mean it"

I miss my fiance...

I don't know how to be optimally loving. I have a friend who is dying of cancer. He'll probably last a few more weeks, but his condition is getting to be unbearable for him, and even with my help we aren't managing the funds to pay for his medicine (which is mostly just stuff to help him keep food down, and a mild pain killer). He found some lady who buys his meds in Mexico and sells them in the states for half of US prices, but it's still $60/day for the bundle. He invited another homeless guy to live with him, which turned out to be a great idea because he can't manage himself outside for very long anymore without puking, which means he relies on the other guy to make rent in their extended stay hotel room.

As far as I know, he has no living relatives who are interested in him. He's probably in his 60s, and has never been married. He had a house he was renting, but that burned down not more than a few weeks ago. From what I can tell, the landlord isn't making him pay for it (not that he could either). He had a friend who used to help him out by purchasing some sort of rugged storage container that he makes. Since discovering that he only had a few months left to live, he'd sold his friend several containers on credit, hoping that his friend's good faith would help pay for medicine. The bill is $500, and his friend isn't going to pay. His friend fully intends to allow him to die suffering in order to avoid paying that money. He lost the draw for military benefits, but he has more than enough characteristic scars, stories, and legitimate info to prove his veterancy (as far as I'm concerned. You can be skeptical, but you'd be wrong).

He's got a really sweet personality, but sometimes he makes off color remarks about Vietnamese people. He found out I had a Korean fiance and then asked me if I was offended by his racism toward Vietnamese people (not in those words). I told him that there's nothing wrong with not liking someone as long as you aren't hurting anyone. He says he's fine with Koreans. lol. He believes in God, but he's not very well versed in doctrine... not that it matters; he get's the point, and his sins are forgiven. He's always telling me about how I must have great karma. I haven't corrected him about that. I figure it isn't worth it to try and talk him into an accurate view of God. I don't even have an accurate view of God. All that matters is that he knows God loves him. His roommate is trying to talk him into getting a weed card. I admit that I think it would be a good thing for him, but he is militantly opposed to any drugs or alcohol (except tobacco apparently), and I can respect that.

I'm totally lost for this guy. I can't give him anything that will help him. Nothing at all that I do will fix his situation. The best I can hope for is to make him happy, but that really isn't what I'm good at. Today I went to see him, to drop off some nicer clothes (he managed to get a "date" with a lady he met at church and was kinda excited about it). He was on his bed when I got there. He had postponed the date because we didn't get him his meds today. He came out on the patio to hang out with me, lit up a cigarette, and smoked about half of it before going back in and throwing up. He told me about his crappy day, and I was interested to hear it, but I only said "yeah" and "huh", because I can't think of anything at all to tell him. I just want him to know that he isn't alone. He told me he wanted to get back in bed, and I said I'd talk to him later, and went back to the car and tried not to cry about it.

Life sucks, but we're all in this together. I'm becoming increasingly convinced: realizing that is what separates God's servants from atheists, and Christians from Pharisees.

I have saved up exactly zero dollars for my wedding. Chowon knows where my priorities are, and although I think she wouldn't like the idea of me not having money, she would agree that showing love to this person (and a few others I've been hanging with off and on) takes precedence over me. God is at the center of our wedding, and he will provide for us. I'm sure of it.

"Don't you know who you're dealing with?"

This song has a cool rhythm... but I think the [trumpet?] breakdown kinda does it a disservice.

Writing about how I don't know how to write about what I want to write about having to write about seems to have helped me to remember how much I like writing about stuff. I saw a commercial for the movie Lucy. On one hand, it has Morgan Freeman's voice in it... on the other hand, I already know what the plot is gonna be... it's probably gonna have some cool graphics... ...    ... I don't have money to waste on movies.

I finally decided on a game engine for that game I was gonna make. It's not that I took forever because I was thinking carefully about it. I simply wasn't looking for one. I still need to finish my plot and character flowchart. I'm gonna use Unity. Oh well.

"I'm a fire breathing tourist with five (count 'em) faces drawn on my belly."

*blaaaah*

I've been dying to get back to that series I was writing before, but [brace for excuses] I've just been too tired, and work is mentally draining, and even on the weekends I don't feel like thinking hard, and Chowon and I haven't been talking much and she is my best "primary" outlet, which would otherwise allow me to reach a state of emotional relaxedness conducive to self development. Like, before I can cook my meal and eat it, I have to go to the grocery store and stock my kitchen -- before I can put any focus on self-development, I have to get all my baggage out of the way. If a spring is under a lot of stress to begin with, it's not gonna be very springy when you bounce stuff on it; if you destress it first, then it can bounce better.

This blog is kindof like a place where I can get baggage out of the way, but these days it's not the kind of baggage that I need to talk about to get off my chest. It's more like, I have been focusing at 70-95% (oscillatory) all day, and I need to give my CPU a break before it melts.

I'd really like to finish the series, though...

Oh well. I wanna give a shout-out to this post. I think it's right on the money.

http://lindsayleighbentley.com/2014/06/30/i-am-ryland-the-story-of-a-male-identifying-little-girl-who-didnt-transition/

When I was a kid, (not exaggerating at all, ask my mom), I would assert for weeks at a time that the sky was green, the grass was blue, that I was king of the insects, and that I was able to interpret bee language and have regular conversation with ant hills. My parents would double check me to make sure I knew the truth, and then they would just play along with me. As long as I knew the truth, it wasn't a big deal. Nowadays I'm scared poopless of bugs, but that's beside the point.

The point is it doesn't matter what you say about yourself when you're 5 years old. Parents ought to give their kids the honest and consistent truth until they get old enough to grasp the nature of people and the world around them, and then make their own decisions (whether that be for or against reality).

Ok, now for my bigoted, horrible, white Christian male opinion. Nobody listen, please. Everyone disregard me because this opinion is officially worthless to the world as soon as my skin color and physical gender are taken into consideration (*cough cough insovietrussiaracismhatesyou cough*).

In the case of transgender, we really need to come up with new gender terms to differentiate physical gender and emotional gender. If that clarification isn't made, and if we teach kids that by saying they're [opposite gender from reality] they become that, then we're teaching our kids to practice illogical thinking. If you only have male parts, then you are decidedly not a female physically. However, for the sake of argument, suppose you can have male parts and be a female psychologically. In that case, for a five year old, the parents shouldn't tell the male kid, "ok, you're a girl." because a girl has female parts, and a male has male parts, and you're gonna really confuse that kid when he gets older if you don't give the kid a sex change pre-puberty, which is a dangerous procedure and has potential to cause hormonal imbalances that negatively affect your cognitive functions during your entire life. Our English language wasn't necessarily built with normalization of perverts and sexual deviants in mind, so as that sort of thing becomes normalized we should at least develop new terms to avoid confusion.

"we came down from the north;
blue hands and a torch.
we share our mother's health.
it is what we've been dealt."

I'm multitasking today while I write. I am, in part, writing in order to stay awake. In the same part part, I'm writing to help me focus on something else, on which I am required to focus, but which doesn't provide me with enough sensory input to keep me awake. In other part, I'm writing to get my thoughts out. This post might be a bit incomplete or incoherent for that reason being "other".

So I've been noticing a change in my perspective which brings me a good lot of bittersweet conviction. I'm happy to be perceiving growth in myself, but unhappy at the state of the things about which I am increasingly aware.

First of all, I want to reach back into my old posts...Aug 14, 2012. My attention was drawn to that post, and it is a hint at my changing perspective. Having been recently (since summer 2013, especially) exposed to a greater variety of religious backgrounds than before, and having been given opportunity to learn about the reasoning behind them and many of their "desired outcomes" for life and the world/universe, I find myself much better able to empathize with people who don't like what I believe. Furthermore, I find myself rather enamored to the beauty and intricacy of those great heights of human imagination in search for meaning. Relevant to my post in Aug 2012, I am now aware of many people who are not Christian and who have experienced harm done to them by Christians. I have even become inclined to think that there are more churches which, by primary mode, do harm to nonbelievers than there are churches which do not. That is to say that my post in August 2012 reflected some ignorance of mine.

That revelation doesn't damage my belief in God, but gives me an idea of just how easily people are turned away from God's intentions. I.E.

...Somebody just started a conversation with me and totally broke my train of thought. I didn't banter well. I really gotta work on shifting gears quicker...

... ...... Well, so, it's pretty easy to be lead astray. Especially if you haven't actually read the whole Bible. I would put money down on a bet that the majority of Christians have not read the whole Bible. To be honest, I haven't even read all of it. I still need to finish reading the "law", "genealogy", and "small prophet" books in the OT. In fact, I am pretty sure that most people are more well aware of the teachings of Paul than of the teachings of Jesus himself. Don't get me wrong, Paul was pretty awesome, but if most/all we hear at church is what Paul had to say -- or worse yet if Paul's teachings are considered to have equal importance to Jesus' teachings -- then we may understandably "miss the point". I was discussing this with someone recently, and approaching the close of a very agreeable conversation, they made the comment "Christianity may as well be called 'Paulianity'". What did Jesus teach? He told us to "love others" over and over and over. His parables and teachings were in large part about giving much, being content with little, being kind and peaceful toward everyone, prioritizing kindness towards people in need (or less fortunate), and respecting God. Now you tell me, does excluding gays, (or worse, homeless people,) from a church fit these teachings? How about protesting construction of a mosque? How about any form of racism? How about subjugating women?

Up next, lets consider this: Jesus was the best evangelist in the history of mankind, right? Did Jesus ever preach to a prostitute or other "hardcore sinner" that he/she was going to hell for his/her sins? I could be wrong... but I don't remember reading that he did. That's not because they wouldn't go to hell if they didn't repent. It's because reminding them of their guilt was completely unnecessary, and maybe even mean. I write this to address some really frustrating stories I've heard of "Christians" who pull that hellfire/brimstone crap thinking they're doing the world a favor by giving absolutism and hurtful criticism. I submit that their time would be better spent serving at a soup kitchen. O.O

Ok. That's it for today.

"Just seeing how the other half lives."

ETA this song

Listening to this song:

These days I occasionally get the impression that someone thinks they're doing me a favor by hanging out with me.

I really don't know how to express myself on this one, so I've come to my blog. If I tell people to leave me alone, they might get offended and then never come back, which would make me lonely. If I don't, then I'm trapped by these social expectations invented and perpetuated by the "socialites" who need them, which is just another kind of loneliness. For example, today I was planning on going to church at 5pm so I could sleep in. I prepared for it and everything, and then someone sent me a text inviting me to play ultimate frisbee after church. I don't want to play ultimate frisbee, but I've been asked so many times, "is something wrong?" or "are you ok?" when I refuse those things, that it is easier for me to skip church and not respond than to handle that. If I tell them I don't want to go, then I have to come up with a way to phrase it which doesn't match any of the "antisocial" steriotypes so that they don't think I'm a project; and even if I come up with a good way to say it, then it will most likely lead them to think I'm weird. If I attend and play ultimate then I'm wasting 1-2+ hours doing something that I don't want to do, pretending to enjoy it.

I want interaction, and I'm blessed that my friends want to interact with me, and I would feel lonely if they stopped.... but I just want to be left alone during some hours of the day when I can still get stuff done before I need to hurriedly get to bed. And by "stuff done", I mean that I want to relax for a few hours and think. Human interaction occupies my mind, and often I need time to re-rail my thoughts afterwards. I can sometimes lead the conversation to a place which allows me to develop the ideas I've been stressing over... but most people can only go to a certain depth, talking about their beliefs, before their discomfort begins to show or I accidentally say something that offends them. I'm not exactly great at "leading in" to topics of conversation; if I am bored by the current topic and am aware of a more mutually beneficial one, I'll often abruptly change the subject. Otherwise, if I'm bored and am not aware of a better topic, I'll experience a strong desire to leave and be alone. Nowadays when I'm around people, I'm not sure if they are the type which doesn't like silence or not, and that makes me want to keep them most comfortable by pushing for conversation even if I don't want it, which is exhausting. Aloneness is not completely necessary, though. I've been able to make myself invisible in a crowded room before. The most desirable thing for me is to have a choice. I would like to have interaction with my friends available to me, but not forced on me.

There are a few exceptions to that rule, though. I am always eager to talk to Chowon, and most always also my family. I am always ok with talking to Gavin if I'm not busy. All my other close friends I am ok with talking to anytime, and appreciate the space they give me (I assume because they know me well enough to know I have nothing especially normal and still interesting to talk about lol). My coworkers are a unique case, and my own feelings here are helping me appreciate the social rules for workplace interaction. Everyone else, I would rather hang out with at most once a week.

"Somewhere nice"

Alright, I want to clarify a few things in my previous post.

First of all... That last bit of judgement, "isn't [it] more beautiful if...", is disconcerting when I reread it. I stand by what I wrote, but I can see how it would lead to an incomplete picture of the "leap" I made. There's more to it; I just haven't gotten to writing it all yet.

Second of all, the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Here's the thing... and tighten your shoe laces because I'm about to issue a few sweeping generalizations... Nihilism is beautiful. In Christian circles, we occasionally talk about "other" worldviews which "lead to nihilism" when taken at their extremes, and then we just stop. Once our conversation touches nihilism we assume hopelessness and depression and get pictures in our head of sad persons on the road to self-destruction, and then we don't elaborate on what nihilism really is. It doesn't have to be depressing. It doesn't necessarily lead to a worldview where one can do whatever one wants. Nihilists are not certainly sociopaths. Nihilism has an undeservedly bad reputation. I'm not going to go into depth about it in this post because it's off topic, but maybe later if I remember to. I encourage you to think about it.

Now the big one -- shoelaces -- atheism is just lazy nihilism. That's right. All your atheist science can be done without any thought about philosophy and the "meaning" of your existence; in fact, many Christians are doing the same exact science. There really isn't anything in "science" that "disproves God", and besides that most of it is truly just "best guess". Much of what our "science" textbooks teach is speculative theory masquerading as science (thank you Mr. J.G. Defares for putting is so eloquently). The point is, it takes very little depth of philosophical thought to be an atheist. I guess the decisive question here is: is philosophy necessary? Well, to be honest, that's a difficult one to argue with someone who doesn't philosophize. I suppose it's equally difficult to answer, "outside of what we as animals naturally need to learn to survive, is learning about the sciences necessary?". The difference, I suppose, between a "only-atheist" scientist and any other scientist is that the others can ponder their existence while they discover the substance of it.

Someone might ask, what is so lazy about atheist philosophy? Well, atheist beliefs are summed up in 4 words: "I believe in nothing". Any and all philosophical effort I've ever seen on the part of an atheist has not been to advance his or her own worldview, but instead to discredit the worldview of others.

Now agnostics... There are a few different definitions of agnosticism out there, but it seems that agnosticism is basically atheism en rout to just about anything else. Agnosticism is respectable in that it is constantly learning and growing. An agnostic who is satisfied with what he currently believes is philosophically dead, and cannot really be called an agnostic. Also, an agnostic who is closed-minded to anything which he has not personally found beyond doubt to be false is a failure.

That's it. Now you guys have heard my rant about atheism and agnosticism, so you know what perspective I'm coming from when I mention them and when I build ideas around them.

"Maybe someday long after I'm dead someone will read these and know me as I wish that I could be known, and love me as I wish that I could be loved."

Oh! Oh! ETA! I've just started reading Descartes, and I got a really good quote. Here it goes:
"It seemed to me that I might meet with much more truth in the reasonings that each man makes on the matters that specially concern him, and the issue of which would very soon punish him if he made a wrong judgment, than in the case of those made by a man of letters in his study touching speculations which lead to no result, and which bring about no other consequences to himself excepting that he will be all the more vain the more they are removed from common sense, since in this case it proves him to have employed so much the more ingenuity and skill in trying to make them seem probable. And I always had an excessive desire to learn to distinguish the true from the false, in order to see clearly in my actions and to walk with confidence in this life."
I like the way he puts this, but I personally prefer (and presently endeavor to articulate) a more... boolean(?)... motivation than "excessive desire...to walk with confidence".

This post is intended to be a part of the series.

I just got back from the Tempe Library. It's my first time there, and I picked up Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Meditations on First Philosophy and by Descartes. He's my favorite philosopher, but to be honest, my knowledge of his work is really shallow. I only know the basics of what he thought, so it's admittedly shortsighted of me to say that he's my favorite. Anyway, I'm gonna pick through it this week, and then again two weeks from now. Next week I'm in Florida, and I can only check books out for 7 days, so I have to return it on Thurs or Fri.

I haven't started reading it yet. I'm hesitant because I kindof want to finish developing my philosophy first, so that I can compare our processes, and not just compare my speculation with his conclusions. Then again, every time I receive new input, my worldview is being developed subconsciously, so avoiding a biasing influence is a futile endeavor. Also, I can always read it and then compare as I go with my own ideas.

Anyway, the last blog was sortof intended to bring you to where I was when I was at a loss. If you keep questioning enough it seems that things come to nothing. That process was extremely valuable, I think, to laying the groundwork for a new and more realistic set of values. However, there's one sort of flaw in the logic I was using.

(Just for the record, when I say "high-level" and "low-level", I'm talking about levels of abstractness. I'm a Computer Engineer, so for me Binary is considered "low-level" because it's closer to the hardware, but "high-level" is all the more complex things built on the binary, which in some ways are more difficult to understand. When I say "high level thinking" I mean the kind of thinking you do normally, and when I say "low level thinking" I mean the kind of thinking I'm trying to do in this blog.)

Alright, now that I've got that out of the way. Come back to high-level thinking with me for a moment. Lets consider 1+1=2. This particular equation is very low level. It's not abstract. It's foundational to everything else. If I ask "Why does 1+1=2?", then the answer is probably something like "Well, if you take one thing, and then you take another of the same thing and put them together, you get two things.", which is basically, "Well, 1+1=2 because if you add 1 and 1, then you get 2.", or "Well, 1+1=2 because 1+1=2". And it would seem that this answer is adequate. (Now I know there's some "big kids" out there saying, "1+1 is not always 2!". Well, if you have 1 beer and you grab another beer before drinking the first one, then you have 2 beers. "Well, a cup of baking soda and a cup of vinnegar makes more than 2 cups of foam". Good job, but you're dodging the point.)

All that to say, eventually you do reach the bottom. There is something that we can be sure exists: that is ourselves. This concept is tiresome because "Myself" is an English word with poorly allocated meaning. (Am I my body? Am I my right arm? Am I my mind? Am I my spirit? Am I your perception of me?). In order for the statement "I can be sure that I exist" to be true, we MUST separate ourselves from our bodies (not literally, but in concept. I'll explain.).

We cannot be sure that our body exists. We cannot be sure that our senses are detecting outside phenomena, or that they are even senses as we consider them to be senses. This information which we suppose comes from our eyes could mean and be and come from and support literally anything if we're misinterpreting it.

We can't be sure that the past exists or that time exists or that the future exists. What if you have been suddenly spawned here with all your immediate, past, and distant memories preconceived and no concept of what just happened? In that case, your past is just something you imagine. What if all your memories and plans exist only in this instant, and in the next perfectly ideally small instant they will disappear? In that case, there is no future. What if both are true? You really have no way of knowing. But what you can know is that for this brief nothingness of an instant you do exist.

Think of yourself not as a thing attached to a body, but just as a collection of impulses happening in the immediate, and assume your body and your perceived environment have no impact or meaningful bearing on you suddenly spawning and having this beautiful cacophony of emotions and then despawning without even necessarily being noticed by the universe. If you can isolate just your awareness (but not even your awareness of external things), and if you can separate the existence of that "self" impulse with it's vague attachments from all of the notions of meaning that you perceive for them, then you're really close to what I am aiming for.

So if you're still tracking with me, the next step is to notice change. Not that you're really noticing anything if you're really only here in the instant, but don't you think that your instant is much more beautiful if you don't know that it's only an instant? In the decision to agree with that statement, we make the leap from atheism to agnosticism. I'll follow up on this later. It's time to wrap up this post.

Just so you guys aren't confused: I'm not going to spend the rest of the series "pursuing beauty" or "justifying my existence by my perceptions on what is most beautiful and not". That leap was necessary to bridge the gap between "1+1=???" and "1+1=2 because 1+1=2". I'm not going to make a habit out of this kind of reasoning (if I can help it).

"Peace in sort of a 'shut up and be still' sort of way..."

So today I heard this song on Pandora

and it made me think... "wasn't there another song like this?"

I was thinking of this song.

It's not exactly the same; and I'm pretty sure Timberlake wasn't basing his song on Ella's. But just to be sure, I looked up the origin of the phrase "cry me a river".

Turns out they were both taking it from this song which, arguably, was alluding to Alice in Wonderland.

Ella Fitzgerald seems to have been covering it.

This all reminded me of this song, which was introduced to me by Mr. Antcliff.

I've posted that one before, but it's just an excellent cover of a(n other) Justin Timberlake song.

And now my eggs are boiling, so it's time for breakfast :)

Oh! Oh! ETA:

I like this song:

"You is still my baby, baby."

Ok, so this post is intended to be a part of the series.

...

Work is pretty cool. I'm nervous, because I want to do a good job, but hopefully everything goes well.

Speaking of nervous, I just got done talking with Chowon's dad on Skype. I thought I'd go to bed right after, but then I decided to blog first.

So the original question was "What's my purpose". I found that my purpose, in general, was to pursue the best interest of those things which are valuable. However, I needed to know what was valuable. Unfortunately, there are several things which are a priority to me, but which are not necessarily intrinsically valuable -- be it myself, my wallet, my God, my family, my car, etc.. This is a problem, because it means that I might be pursuing things which are contrary to my purpose. This line of thinking also assumes that I have a purpose. That assumption is not made lightly, but I believe that the existence of a purpose for me will either be confirmed or debunked  by a journey to validate my existence. If it is indeed valid and purposeful, then I will find something; but if it isn't, then I won't and I expect to find conclusive evidence that it isn't. I intend to just go until I find conclusive or at least satisfactory evidence one way or another. I didn't actually answer my original question on May 18th; but I think I implied it adequately. I'll try to be more explicit now.

Well, let's get there. Here's an exercise for my reader: Answer the question, "What has intrinsic value?", thinking in a cosmic sense. Don't say "my kids" or "my niece". Be more general. What is it about them that makes them intrinsically valuable? Try to think big -- step back, out of yourself. (you might as well start there, but wherever you start, I predict you'll end up in the same place.)

The next step is to ask yourself "Why" over and over and over. Don't accept "I can't think of an answer". If you don't have an answer for why something is valuable, then write it down, assume that it isn't valuable, and start over somewhere else. If your answers become circular, write them down and assume that nothing on the list is valuable, then start over somewhere else.

For me, I didn't actually do the exercise on paper, but I arrived at the following list approximately:
"God is valuable... because He's God"
"Chowon is valuable... because I love her... for x list of reasons... blah blah"
"I have to live... because I have to live"
"My emotions and impulses are valuable... because they're all I have"
"Life is valuable... because it's all we have. It's all we have, because we're alive"
and a few others.

You might be able to go further than these, or you might have different lists. An important thing to remember here is that this list is heavily biased by the developmental conditioning you've received from your family, religion, culture, etc. (basically, each person's childhood is effectively brainwashing no matter what happens). You have a set of values which you might not be able to see past, and realizing that is the first step to getting around them. The next, much more difficult step, is discovering and codifying those values so that you can dismantle them and arrive at the truth. That is, any value which you hold without knowing exactly why you hold it is a potential inhibitor for you -- and it keeps you from allowing your worldview to reach its fullest potential. Even if you know a certain value to be true, it is important to discard it for a time being so that you can re-arrive at it with full justification. Otherwise, you don't know why you believe what you believe, and your beliefs are subjective to your self-imposed limitations, and therefore your worldview may be based on lies, and in an extreme case your thoughts may be eternally worthless without you even knowing it.

I am personally aware of a few of my inhibitors:
Perhaps the biggest "limiting" preconception I have is my religion. I was raised in the Christian Church and I believe in God as an absolute truth. I've tried defeating this one, and I repeatedly arrive at the same conclusions. God is necessary for humans, not as a crutch but as a defining characteristic of our ability to be a productive species as we are. I discussed God's necessity in depth in a previous blog, but I can rehash it at request. God's necessity is a form of proof for His existence (that is, God created us to worship Him, and our apparent need to look up to and be a part of something greater than ourselves fits this mold). Perhaps in this journey I'll discover some inconsistencies in my worldview and remove God from the equation. Although I'm open to such a change, my experience tells me that it isn't likely to happen. (So, you can stop reading now, or you can sortof trust me when I say I'm doing my best to be unbiased, and maybe I'll arrive at a new conclusion, and we'll both be wrong).

So, after making that list, I went through the list and said for each impassible "reason", "Why is this a valid reason?". That is, "Why does it matter that X is because of Y? How does that give X or Y intrinsic value?" Now make another list, if possible. If you really can't justify something with an answer, then discard it completely; this can no longer be used to assign value to anything in future consideration because it has no foundation.

Ok, now, having an updated list with a bunch of reasons and explanations, and having crossed out all the things that you can't justify, ask yourself, "On what grounds do I trust myself and my senses enough to make these judgments?", and "Do I even exist?". Here are some examples of unacceptable answers to these questions: "Because I'm me!"; "Because my senses are all I have!"; "I think therefore I am!" [no mooching. You have to do this yourself].

Those last few questions are perhaps difficult. If you have some answer for them, ask yourself why it's valid. Then repeat the process a few times. If you're like me, you might arrive somewhere like: "nothing".

That's it for now. I'll continue later.

"To the gods of this world I say 'peace'."

Ok, I've been thinking a lot about my previous blog, and I think it deserves some more elaboration. The train of thought which I've been taking has lead me to a place where I feel a desire to organize my thoughts. Here's the agenda for my next few blogs (each of these points may be several posts):
1. Elaborate on May 18th, point for point.
2. Establish the existence of truth.
3. Establish my own ability to observe reality.
4. Examine truths which are substantially evidenced by observation alone.
5. Finalize foundation for worldview; draft and summarize.

There may be off-topic posts between points here. There's no guarantee I will ever motivate myself enough to elaborate on any of the above points. In fact, there's no guarantee I will ever write again. For that matter, there's no guarantee that earth will be in orbit tomorrow. I intend to self-criticize as I go, but as self-criticism is invariably biased I hope that someone will call me out on any inconsistencies or holes in my train of thought.

"Who am I? Where am I? What's going on here?"

These days I've been thinking about my purpose. Not the purpose assigned to me by something external, but the purpose I assign for myself. I wanted to answer the question: What should I do (in general)? or What's worth doing? or even more abstractly, What's the point (in the immediate)?

A few things came to mind immediately: "give glory to God", "pursue happiness", "love others", "sustain self" (not in any order). In order to get that answer, I had to ask myself,  "why is it valuable to give God the glory?", or "what's the point in pursuing happiness?", or "why love others?", and "why sustain self?". The greater question here is "What makes something worth doing?"

Alright, well, in order: "Because he's God."; "Because being happy is desirable. [Why?] Because the chemicals in my body told me so."; "Because making others happy leads indirectly to my greater well being. Also, God told me to. [God again.]"; "Because if I don't, then I'll die. [Why not die?] Because the chemicals in my body tell me not to. [the chemicals again]".

So, what makes something worth doing anyway? Well, from our very short list, and some very summarized 'prime factorization' of the points (I don't want to take forever writing this blog. It's just an overview), we've found that the primary motivators in question are God and Body Fluids.

I narrowed down the question to "what makes something valuable?" and then, "Does anything have intrinsic value?".

I decided to assume that God doesn't exist, or that if He does exist then there's no way to verify His intrinsic value (only to see where it took me). The issue where I got stuck was "why will I do anything that's 'valuable?" and "What is the relevance of 'value' to me, if it even exists?"

Skipping some stuff, I realized that I had essentially swept over my entire life and determined that nothing matters unless I decide it matters. I am not saying that value is relative to the person; I'm saying that in the lowest stage of abstraction, I became completely alone. For all intents and purposes, nobody else exists unless I acknowledge them (not just to me, it's absolute [admittedly from my perspective alone]). If a tree falls in the middle of the woods and I don't hear it, I couldn't care less if it exists or not -- even if somehow it "affects" my body indirectly. My body is not a part of me; it's just a medium by which I am able to think clearly until I get brain damage. After that, I might not even be me. Since I have no intrinsic value (all perceived value is only perceived by an assigner), I determine that humanity also has no intrinsic value. If another species wipes out humanity, it's because we were simply inferior sacks of chemicals.

So, the conclusion: in order to avoid an impending death by apathetic starvation, I needed to just "decide" to give value to something. Just one thing, though! Giving value to something is dangerous. If I pick something like "Flies" for example, to be the foundation for value, then everything else which is not productive to the production of flies needs to change or disappear. Flies are now the determining factor and ultimate authority on what has value. Rotting stuff has assigned value, metal doesn't. If a certain area doesn't have enough flies, we'd better get to killing somebody to make more fly food. But lets be more realistic. Lets say the environment has intrinsic significance... actually, that's just utterly depressing. I'm not gonna justify that with any more explanation. Another one I'm not gonna justify is "I alone am intrinsically significant". That's pathetic, lazy, and ultimately it doesn't work anyway.

Lets say that "People" have intrinsic significance. Now we're getting somewhere, but it's not quite good enough. People are self-destructive; what if person A wants to kill person B, but person B wants to live. Whose desires are more significant? Suppose we narrow it down to "human life", and this will get us very close to the right answer, but then we're able to take away a human's freedom in order to preserve their life. If we're to give intrinsic value to "all life" and "freedom", then we run into issues with "conflicting wills" and "what is really free?". Is the minority free if the majority votes against them? Are people still free if they unanimously elect a ruthless dictator who takes away all their other freedoms? The election was free.

The "God Given Rights" recognized in the U.S. are a pretty good attempt at giving intrinsic value to something other than God, and I'm not gonna get into the issue with those.

Long story short, the answer was God. I have to choose to give God value, and then everything else falls into place. I'm sure you're all well capable of extrapolating from here.

"How ya doin?"

Found this band:

They're pretty good, I think :)
Great music for relaxing/working, but not so chill that it puts you to sleep.

Also been listening to Bon Iver, As Cities Burn, and Matisyahu more lately.

I've got some great imaginary conversations in my head these days.

Wish I had more time to write them out.

Tomorrow's plan:

1100 wake up
1200 chapel
1300 brunch
1330 start studying 특허법
1745 dinner
1900 DSP
2030 특허법
0130 bed

In my spare time, (and in my busy time), I've been watching TwitchPlaysPokemon. We're pretty close to beating the E4. I hope the save file gets released for download.

Also, I've been working on compiling a wishlist for the soundtrack to the game I'm working on :). Still need a few more songs, to flesh out all the parts of the game that need unique music.

This song is on the wishlist, and I've been kindof addicted to it lately:

Also, this song is pretty cool:

"I don't think you realize how this works."

Ozzie Nelson...I love this song.

The Cass Eliot version has a better YouTube recording, but I kinda like the grainy vinyl sound.

I've been really back and forth lately about what I like. I dig the mellow electronic stuff and some hip-hop (the kind which is written by people with self respect), but I can't seem to escape the oldies. These are the stations on my Pandora Shuffle right now:

StarF***er
Hiromi and Chick Corea
Ratatat
Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald
Psyche O and Nujabes

(Each with an assortment of likes and dislikes, of course).

This week I've been taking some time to appreciate the lessons I've learned from my mistakes in the past. Without getting into detail... ;;; I'm really blessed by God's grace and forgiveness. I'm a better person, in part, because of the way God has used my guilt to push me away from repeating my mistakes. I still feel regrets because of some things... but that's because I now am able to see how strongly my actions affect the people around me, and how much my words and actions also affect myself (as well as the other way around). I feel like people are going to read this and think "Zac's being melodramatic," or "Zac hasn't done anything that bad. He's just a first-world kid with exaggerated problems." Don't suppose that things I've done fit on some scale of good and bad that you've conceived of.

Without defeating myself here... it's the little things that bother me the most. Big things, like going to jail, send a clear message: "don't do that again!". The things that bother me the most are things I've gotten away with. They say you're only in trouble if you get caught, but... I think it's much easier to let go of your guilt if you've been punished for it. I guess the point here is that I'm really blessed that God has given me the ability to self-analyze. I recognize my regrets, experience them, learn from them, and then let them pass over me like clouds -- becoming new. I've done a few things I really really wish I could apologize to somebody for... God, please continue to mold me into the person you want me to be. And don't cut me any slack.

Also, I made my blog a little wider, but I'm not sure if I like the way the header sits on it. I'm gonna experiment with the dimensions more later.

"because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son."

These days I've been distracted. I've been pretty stressed, and I feel like I've been neglecting my relationships. My work load isn't even that big. It just feels weighty. My job is contingent on my graduation, and my marriage is contingent on my job. Also, somehow, I just always have something in my schedule.

Last semester, late in, I deleted all my video games to make room for studying for finals. I figured I'd install them again at the beginning of this semester, and delete them around midterms if they were hurting my productivity. So I deleted them again on Wednesday. In their place, I have about 150 pages of reading material about patent law and intellectual property.

My piano teacher's husband didn't wake up, and when he was rushed to the hospital they found three tumors in his brain, and so they both need prayer. Also, My good friend is in a custody battle with her ex husband, and she needs prayer for that.

Didn't get much sleep this week. Monday and Tuesday it was video games; Wed-Fri it was homework.Also, every time I'm about to stop writing this blog, a song I like comes up on Pandora.

Tomorrow is Saturday. I have all the time in the world to get my long-desired sleep. I can push it off for another 3:55...

"This is the promise of our liberty."

The Blue Dream, considering the bitterness of her guilt and overwhelming sorrow, doesn't know if it's what she's meant to feel. A specter; the nostalgic imaginings of a former friendship, which has never been too far out of reach for her to attempt to grasp it, is now completely obscured by a wall of awkward social complexes. It's what we're trained to give-up against, even when opposed by the deepest longings of her heart and the hole left in it by a Red King.

I know better, and want nothing more than that my darling, Chowon, will never forget that I love her. I want an honest friendship that lasts forever -- humble and fearless. With God's blessing, I can give that to Chowon and work toward her happiness forever, experiencing great joy whenever her sincere smile is given back to me.

Dear Father in Heaven, please bless my friends with peace in their lives. More than anything, please give them a full sense of your love for them.

"I met the devil and I stared her in the eyes. Her hair had scales like silver serpents; I, a statue, stood there mesmerized. I took the fire escape and made it out alive. Yeah, I still burn from time to time, but I have a healing hand against my side"