Monday, June 23, 2014

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"

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

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".

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

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..."

Sunday, June 8, 2014

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."

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

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'."

Monday, June 2, 2014

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?"
Map
 
my pet!