What Broke Me as a Child

I was born into a world to be raised by children - adults, they call themselves.

That would've been totally fine by me, to be raised by children - after all, it's not like I ever believed that they had some deep insights into the world that couldn't occur to some bright children. But the fact is that they always insisted that they had some deep insights into the world we shared, and it seemed too obvious to me that they didn't.

In this respect, I realized since I was little that adults were no different from children in general and that they couldn't be trusted just on the premisse that they were adults. Sometimes, as a kid, I would hurt at the schoolyard, playing with my friends. I concluded that the same was true for adults - life had replaced their schoolyard, and the heavy, harsh experiences brought about by it were now their friends. Their wounds, instead of physical, were now psychological. They had lost something - perhaps courage to challenge, open-mindedness, independent thinking, empathy and capacity to have fun; they had gained other features which I didn't like, such as hatred of what is different and fear of losing something which I didn't immediately knew what it was, but later realized was self-esteem and pride. So there it was - the reason as to why everytime adults were challenged on anything, they reacted as if you were taking away a toy from them. They had never really stopped being children in that sense: their self-love and pride and joy were at risk everytime a child tried to understand, to inquire, to reason; when curiosity knocked on the door, the whole foundation of the building would shake. This was all they had - the hard-cooked remains of a happy, carefree youth.

I think that's one of the things that broke apart my spirit when I was a kid. That's what, I think, was the death of an otherwise psychologically healthy kid - the early realization that I couldn't trust anyone to take care of me. "No - I need someone", I thought. I desperately searched for a true adult - someone wise and fun; someone to grab me and save me from the other insensitive, scary children; someone who understood and was not afraid to understand more.

My grandfather threw me a short, fragile rope (it was all he could give) - I grabbed it, I tried to cling to it and go up the well of desperation I was in. But I couldn't go all the way up - not until later in my life, when I was strong enough to climb all by myself.

Now, as a grown child (and not an adult), I look at the well with a certain nostalgia - the dark room where my mind lived in is no more.

Conceited Me

People are shit.

I agree.

The similarity between you and me is that I, too, don't strive to be perfect.

The difference between you and me is that I don't complain about the human species and sit idle, waiting for the next show of human stupidity so that I can throw the lazy-champion punchline. The difference between you and me is that I chose to make myself in such a way as to avoid spreading the malady even further.

Bird's Eye View XII

Some people have the strange notion that somewhere, somehow, there should exist someone who accepts all their flaws; but if they recognize them as flaws, I fail to understand why they themselves didn't start working on them to set the example as that kind of person in the first place. They are either unaware of their own condition, or they are selfish, egocentric people. I am not going to plunge into which is the more detrimental for human relationships.

Bird's Eye View XI

The most pleasing story is, more often than not, the one we choose to tell ourselves in order to cope with the most disturbing story we are actually part of.

Social Contract on Freedom of Speech

Me being free includes the possibility that I'm going to say something which is going to hurt you personally - otherwise I could not speak out of fear of hurting you, and fear is not a sound basis for happiness.

You being free, however, should also include the fact that your happiness and well-being would not be generally compromised by any individual stating their opinion - otherwise you would live in fear of someone stating what you don't agree with because it offends you personally, defying freedom.

Therefore each of us would do well to attempt to maximize our own happiness and freedom, so that both of us can speak our mind without being in fear of personal offense, never losing, however, the compassion and love and respect, not necessarily for personal views, but for each other as human beings.

Bird's Eye View X

People whose confidence rests upon the fact that they cannot imagine themselve being wrong, cannot adopt another point of view or stand being corrected or challenged, do not truly possess this attribute, but have only managed to delude themselves to a point where adopting any position of humbleness would destroy this important basis for happiness.

That just shows that their confidence rests on a very weak basis, since confidence that is built on strong foundations would never be so sensible as to not withstand challenge, nor depend upon any delusion of absolute certainty.

Why sail?

Why bother?

I won't deny that life seems to be meaningless in of itself.

Each one of us is on a boat which apparently goes to nowhere, sailing on an ocean which we don't understand very well for a limited amount of time; meanwhile, waves strike at us relentlessly. We withstand the first, second, and third waves, and we fear that the next one is the end of us. We see no shore; we see no shelter. So we ask ourselves - why sail after all?

That's an important question, with no real answer. My personal view is pretty much hedonistic - we are capable of feeling joy and happiness, alongside hope and fear. So, in a certain sense, even though we are all sailing on boats, apparently lost, the only thing that makes the journey (any journey) worth is satisfaction, happiness and fun. So let's, each one of us, do with the boat what we see fit.

Some are happy when they find land. A few get used to the land, which is a small world compared to the vastness of the ocean, but it's more than enough for some - and why shouldn't it be?

Some take pleasure by travelling between islands, exploring and searching each island and then going on to the next. They don't fear the ocean, and they take pleasure and are happy while the journey keeps on going.

For me, the highest degree of happiness is achieved when you take pleasure in understanding the ocean. Of course, if you want to understand it you have to spend a lot of time in it; study the waves, try to catch glimpses of their rhythms. This is the closest I will ever get to be truly free. I want to know them as I know myself - so what keeps me sailing is just the pure happiness and satisfaction from knowing something about the ocean. Perhaps I will even get to help someone by discovering something about the way the ocean behaves. Perhaps someone will lose their fear of sailing to other lands, or they will find some joy in this otherwise scary place - I can only hope so.

But in the end, no one has to bother sailing - but many are happy bothering.

It's my boat, and I will take it wherever I want. And if it sinks, and waves strike my body around at their own whim and water fills my lungs, perhaps I will have a last glimpse of their deepest secrets.

I understand infinity, but I cannot contemplate it.

Many people stand in awe of the fact that our brain can contemplate, imagine and understand infinity.
My contention is that we do not contemplate nor imagine infinity, but rather that we understand the meaning of the language, or the definition of the concept. Take the sentences:

'For any number you imagine, however great, add one more', or equivalently,
'There is no highest number'.

We are capable of understanding the meaning of the language behind infinity, but we cannot imagine nor grasp an infinite number of things in our head - we always start with finite quantities, and create higher, albeit finite, quantities. To prove my point further, take the sentences:

'There is a certain species of animal which is different from any species of animal you have seen in the past and doesn't share any characteristics with it'.
'A number can be even, odd, or even another one which I have called plath.'
'A tesseract is the representation of a cube in four spatial dimensions'.

We understand the meaning of each of those sentences, in the sense that there is something to be discovered which we have never experienced - but we cannot imagine what it is in our heads. In fact, we can systematize how to build a cube in four-dimensions, yet we do not imagine it as such - if we hadn't come up with a systematic method for lower dimensions, our brains could not, out of thin air, imagine a four-dimensional cube. This is only to show the point that because we understand the meaning of a certain propositions, does not mean we can imagine what it is we are talking about.

Another point to raise is this: you can imagine hybrid animals, and you can imagine many, many different combinations for each species - perhaps one, two, three, or even more with given time. But can you imagine all possible combinations of arms, legs, hair, eyes of animals with the limited, finite number of species you already know in an instant? And if you add the characteristics of plants to the pool? Probably not. If this is true for a finite number of entities that we know (and this number is already an extremely high number), it should be true for an unlimited number of entities, which is the case of numbers, that can be combined to give additional numbers. We are capable of imagining a set of random numbers, however high, but we cannot imagine an infinity of them.

Our brains seem to be limited by empirical input in order to imagine certain things - a new species of animals, four dimensions, a new color. However, some mathematical/abstract concepts, such as infinity, can be understood, but not imagined - how come? My contention (which I am sure is not an original one) is that we understand the meaning of those concepts not from any empirical input, but from the fact that we have a language mechanism inherent to the human being - this language mechanism makes us capable of understanding logical propositions, or general propositions, without us knowing what exactly we are talking about. I will attempt to develop it later on.

Creativity and imagination are still, nevertheless, the features that take us forward - and who knows, some years from now, certain concepts which are so strange for us in the present are nothing short of trivial for future generations.

The World of Abstract Entities II

* is in likeness of polished, clean glass, with a shine of its own; #, on the other hand, presents itself dirty and reckless - guided by its rebellious, random nature, # soils * with suffering and disgust. Pure as it is, * feels ravished, violated, abused; in the end, it realizes that # - frivolous - will not stop and respect purity - the battle between these two abstract identities begins, only to last a few moments in this hypothetical time.

*, exhausted, loses the fight and shatters in the metaphysical walls of this Universe; it can see pieces of itself spread all over the multidimensional space - pieces so dirty they could belong to the opponent. It wishes to have fought more vigorously to maintain its identity, wholeness and purity; it wishes to have battled with fervor and joy worthy of an immaculate concept who knows and values itself.

(Fragments of ideas wither away / abstractions cease to be) and all is silent.
The dark sky has witnessed, an infinite number of times, the death of imagination.

The World of Abstract Entities I

It starts with nothing (0).

0 is broken down into -1 and 1. It is also broken down into two other invented numbers in a number line perpendicular to the first number line, called -2# and 2#; and yet in another perpendicular number line, into -3* and 3*. This process can be repeated ad infinitum, without zero suffering any consequences; nothingness is still there, inventing infinity - relentlessly, tirelessly.

As seen from the eyes of an imagined beholder, the universe of abstract entities is nothing but symmetry aspiring to become anti-symmetric; plus and minus infinity each trying to reach the end of their lines. But it is clear that numbers are just spread bits of nothingness in disguise, attempting to be more than nothing at all.

Emotions I: Problems raised from definitions of emotions

// While an emotion is generally described as a physiological response to an external stimulus (e.g. fear in the face of danger), a feeling is more generally described as a state of consciousness, or an internal, more subjective representation of emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) - for the purpose of discussion, I will treat them both as being equivalent, in the sense that both are subjective experiences. //

Our individual perception of feelings and emotions towards an object are always true. That is to say, If I am able to perceive my feelings regarding apples, I can know the truth value of the proposition "I like apples", since whatever definition I use for "like" is adequate in the personal realm, whether I consider the proposition to be true or false. What one means by "like", "love" or even "hate" is different from the emotion, or the experience, itself. In fact, at this point, it would be confusing to state that we experience "different emotions", but rather that we experience "emotion" - this definition encompasses all the complex states that an individual might experience, disregarding any labels usually given by us. Although our experience of emotion is, in this sense, absolute and personal, the definitions that we use to describe emotion are not absolute - this raises a problem of subjectivity in describing and communicating our personal experiences to others, and I will try to clarify this issue with an example. If an individual X tells individual Y that he feels love towards individual Z, but Y notices that X is generally aggressive, spiteful, and murderous when he is with individual Z, Y will have a hard time believing that X really loves this individual Z. If the feeling/emotion "love" exists, and X has no doubt that he loves Z, why does Y doubt? That is because what we humans conveniently labelled as "love" is nothing more than an expression of feeling in the form of actions. Even though we perceive and experience emotion, potentially in an unique way which cannot be replicated in other individuals nor completely evaluated, our actions are a function of our subjective experiences - if there is a pattern in the actions taken by a high number of individuals when they experience a certain biological state, then it is convenient to label this biological state. Y will probably not believe that X loves Z because the actions taken by X when he experiences Z do not fall within the set of actions caused by what he previously labeled as "love". To say that a mother loves her child is to say that mothers will generally take certain actions, similar for different mothers, towards each of their child that we therefore label as "love". Even though we cannot access individually the experience of each of these mothers and conclude that these are exactly the same, there is a certain pattern of actions taken on behalf of these emotions that is similar. If a mother states that she loves her child, but abuses, beats down, and violates its own child, most people will not believe her claim - because what we label as "love" is the cause of radically different actions than those taken by this same mother. We are thus at a crossroads: on the one hand, we have the feeling or emotion perceived and experienced by the individual, which is potentially unique; on the other hand, we have the actions taken on behalf of this emotion, which are recognized as a pattern by humans and therefore labeled.

If we wish to systematize and properly define a certain emotion, we are stuck between individuality and actions taken and recognized by others on behalf of emotional states.

Should we walk the long, treacherous path of individual definitions of emotion, or should we simply label it as a pattern, or set, of actions generally observed in individuals? If the former, we probably won't find a satisfying definition that is in accordance with every person and accurately depicts each and every wave in an ocean of sentiments; if the latter, another problem is raised - what if we take no noticeable actions on behalf of the emotions that we feel so that these cannot be evaluated by anyone except ourselves? And if we were mere spectators, how would we be able to distinguish such an individual from an emotionless machine?

I have thought about some possible definitions of emotion that attempt to alleviate some of these problems, but at this time I won't dwell on it. It needs more thought and clarification before it can be presented as something worth considering. Moreover, the future development of science, particularly of the fields of neurology and psychology, might help us establish a link between the personal and the external realm.

Flight

The flight in my dreams gives me the utmost feeling of happiness - it represents the breakage of mental and physical constraints imposed by myself and by life in general.

I have to admit that I fail miserably at flying in real life and I've so failed for the most part of it. Of course, I do not aspire to be completely free from all there is to be free: we share feelings among us, as humans beings, and we live in a society when the maximum happiness of the group depends and is related with the individual happiness. To attempt to conquer an absolute and utopic freedom is to deny what makes us human.

But I can try to conquer the most I can without compromising my humanity - for me, the conquest of freedom resumes itself in the conquest of happiness.
Dreams are not absolutely real; but they can be made pretty close.

Bird's Eye View IX

An intelligent individual knows how to defend a view he/she holds.
A more intelligent individual knows what views are reasonable to hold.

Life Becoming Self-aware

Apparently, I am alive. I didn't know I was alive before - I didn't even know I was anything. All of a sudden, I am obliged to be something.

Apparently, I have feelings - I didn't know I had them, nor what feelings were, but all of a sudden it seems to me that I've always had them. Feelings are like waves spreading throughout space - yes, this is what feelings feel like.

Apparently, I have memories and I've always had them. I don't recall a time when I didn't have memories of course, although I realize now that there was a time of memories without me. Memories are like waves spreading throughout time - this is what recalling seems like.

Apparently, I am an actor and I was put on stage to act like I don't exist at all.
And it was really like I didn't exist for an infinite amount of time; all of a sudden, reality stroke my mind as if there was ever something less than reality.

-- Yes, this must be eternity collapsing.

The Call

People call for him; they still call for God, that one deity standing on the pedestal of goodness and justice, of mercy and power. Usually, I would say "I don't believe in your God, although I do not claim that he does not exist". However, when I observe the rotten fruit that grows from the tree, I can safely say:

"I believe your God does not exist; for if any one does exist, he is so fundamentally different from the one you profess exists that I can dismiss your God with the same vanity that you claim his existence."

Atrocities happen on the Earth from sunrise to sunset; so they have since the dawn of age. Yet people, embracing their egocentric selves, call for him; after so many evidence highlighting our insignificant place in the Universe, after witnessing humans enslaved and tortured, children starve to death, buried alive, dying of cancer, after witnessing extreme hate, misery and selfishness, -  they still have audacity to call for him. This is the pinnacle of narcissism and abjection - God help us all.

Bird's Eye View VIII

When faced with a hard decision on which path to take regarding your professional career, choose the one in which you can see yourself failing and still having fun.

Freedom of Expression, but...

Freedom is a delicate subject. Regarding (i) the recent declaration from the Pope that it is wrong to mock, offend, criticize, or provoke the faith of religious people; (ii) the "freedom of expression but (...)" comments I have read throughout the Internet regarding the Charlie Hebdo massacre - I have this to say:

If I were to be mocked by a creationist because I believe in evolution, should I punch him and compare my situation to the one described by the Pope, where we should expect a punch from someone whose mother we mocked? Of course not, that would be absurd - in principle, I would be able to defend my beliefs and my position with rational discourse, if I even cared to reply. Why, then, should I be offended, or respond violently, if I know that what I believe is logical and consistent, or why should I resort to violence when someone says x, y, z about my mother which I know to be false? And even if it was true, why should I be offended and angered by the truth, and use that as justification for my violence? However, according to the pope, if you mock someone who holds irrational beliefs, expect retaliation. First of all, I would expect violent retaliation from a child, not from a decent adult - if you are capable of hitting someone because they mocked someone who you love, you are already acting unethically - there's no excuse to it. Now take it to the next level - if you are capable of killing someone on behalf of insults made to someone who you love, while that entity has not even been proven to exist, simply because you hold faith, you are an immoral fiend and beyond hope - there's no way to circumvent this. There is little, or nothing, you can say to open the eyes of an individual capable of taking another one's life in behalf of his irrational beliefs, since basic empathy towards a fellow human was incapable of doing so. But getting back to the point: the main difference between the first situation I described (someone believing in evolution) to the latter (someone holding faith) is that faith cannot be discussed; faith cannot be rationalized; faith is simply too weak and fragile to allow for arguments. Faith is, by proper definition, irrational and unreasonable; by my own definition, unattainable and unwise. However, it has become much more than that. Faith has become a passport to being offended when others mock or criticize your unjustified beliefs; it has become a passport to act upon the fact that you are so sensible, so irrational and so deeply attached to your preconceptions, that you have no alternative way of defending your beliefs other than verbal or physical aggression. The more liable you are to being offended, the greater the constraint on the freedom of expression of others.

The absolute best that we could do right now would be to seriously think about this issue. Learn how to tolerate the opinions that we don't like - that's part of life; be honest enough to realize that faith has no special place among the world except in the personal realm, and will be given no special treatment by others; know that society has evolved due to constant disagreements and critics, which many times involves mockery of what we, as individuals or as society, think absurd or ridiculous - that is how we grew up not only socially, but ethically and morally. There is no human right to not be offended - how could we even attempt at freedom if that was the case? There is an unique meaning to freedom of expression, and "but" is not, and never was, included in the definition. If we are to share the same sky, we must learn how to deal with one another without diminishing the very freedom that enriches our human experience.

Bird's Eye View VII

There is little you can say to open the eyes of an individual capable of taking another one's life in behalf of his beliefs, since basic empathy towards a fellow human was incapable of doing so.