The clock on my head tick.
It ticks so fast that I forget the trick.
It ticks so fast but I want it to stop.
Ticking, ticking, tick-tock, tick-tock.
Standing still, watching the clock.
Closing eyes, feeling the shock.
It does not matter in what dimension it is, the eyes are firmly fixated on the ticking.
The body stays still, the mind travels until.
The feeling is hatred, abhorrence, but the act is silence and fixation. Fixated to the hatred and abhorrence.
The body begs for movement, the mind affirms it, yet it is fixated. Fixated to the clock.
...ticking, ticking, tick-tock, tock-tock. Body screams, mind stays still.
Silent scream... incessantly craves for acting it, the mind affirms, but withholds.
It explodes but silently, creeping to the skin. Blinding the body. But the mind is still clear on its fixation.
Fixated on the clock... tick-tock, tick-tock... It then disappears, but the body succumbs to it nevertheless.
Do it... the mind knows it. The body awaits for the command. The mind is still fixated.
Fixated... on the clock.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Noodle and waiting
2 January 2011, 18:11 to 19:36, Mie Goreng Aceh, Tanah Kusir
I am always fascinated by how people sit down in ordered tables and then wait for their foods. There are children, grandma, and a middle-aged. They are families, individuals, and they are waitresses.
One kid is playing a PS. He is very drawn into it. I am trying to observe what he is doing, trying to get into his head. Is that what I feel when I was small and played with a game gadget while going out with my parents? Of course, i am waiting for the food as well as i am also hungry. But it is just fun to be so engrossed into something i really like doing, something that takes my mind off of things. Like writing this piece. Writing this piece in such a mess of order is not something i usually do. I am a lawyer and a legal scholar. What we do is we must think of every possible structure, argument, and counter argument before even writing it. This piece is a mess in terms of structure and coherence. But i simply want to write something and then reflect on it.
Now the food has arrived. The kid is still playing with the PS while eating. His mom and 2 other aunties (seems to be) are eating with full consciousness of eating to get full. They have a shared plate which sort of indicates intimacy. They are chatting over some issues about their maids. It looks serious. But the kid does not respond to it whatsoever.
I, then, see right on their side, a man who seems to be the father of that kid. He is moving toward the kid's direction and eating up some of the kid's food. The guy seems to like it very much. Oh it turns out that he is waiting for his food to be delivered and decided to eat up some of the kid's food. He, then, went back to his cellphone, playing with a blackberry.
*Blackberry is a popular device in Indonesia by 2011.
Right now i am waiting for my food. The guy seems to forget that i have ordered my food (my noodle) and of course the egg (it is called telur mata sapi, which literally means cow's eyes as the egg resembles cow's eyes shape). I will usually be very mad about this as the cook delivered the food to the person who came later than I did. I think this may be a good way of living a different kind of life. You know, as a lawyer, I am typically all the efficient guy and righteous. I dont tolerate people being inefficient, not especially when he delivered someone's food first while i have ordered first. Now I am going to talk to him as I am hungry and I need to eat.
I have talked to the guy and it turns out that he was cooking a huge portion of noodle for roughly 8 plates. The reason why he delivered the food to someone else first is because that person ordered fried rice and it seems the stall has ready fried rice, but not noodles. So I was wrong to assume to he forgot my order. Now I would like to eat...
While I am eating, I see that kid does not finish the food. It looks like it is one-third of the original portion. He does not seem to be interested in the food anymore. He went back to his game gadget. Occasionally, he would take a small piece of his food and eat it while playing game. His grandma joked about him not wanting to finish the food. I wandered why his grandma was laughing at all. What is so funny about it? I suppose because his grandma thought he was a funny kid. I still wonder why the grandma was laughing at all.
I lit up a cigarette after I finish my food. I always have this precaution that some people are perhaps are not happy at all about me smoking. There are several reasons. One, perhaps, is because they dont like the smell of cigarette or second because they perceive smoke from cigarette to be unhealthy. I, then observe around me whether people are noticing me or not. They were 2 glances. And as a cultural convention, i suppose, it is not polite to stare at someone, so their stares usually end as soon as I glance back.
There is a big guy who just arrives at the restaurant. He seems to come alone and doesnt seem to be waiting for anyone. He is almost bald and his body is well-built. I suppose he is a body builder or an army member. There is another guy who has just come in. He was engrossed in his cell phone. He looks like a business person (not a wealthy one). He looks quite decent yet almost poor. But it does not make sense because he is holding a blackberry that i know is quite expensive. It perhaps costs more than Rp 5 million. But there are a lot of assumptions here. Credit system for blackberry is rampant. I mean he may be paying installments for that piece of blackberry or he may steal it. But I will assign benefit of doubt for him, that is to think that he did not steal that blackberry. I wonder what he is doing. He has been staring at the blackberry for more than 5 minutes. Now the big, almost bald, body-building guy is also playing with his cellphone. Ok, now he is eating. He looks very serious about the blackberry. It is as almost as something very urgent and important is going on. Perhaps, his business, family member problem? Oh, it turns out that he was waiting for his food for a take away. He is not eating in the restaurant.
He took out a Rp 50.000 piece of money, paid his food and then left. He took his car key out of his pocket. At least, it looks like a car key. Oh, it is a motorcycle key. The key just resembles a car key very much. He left using a motorbike without a helmet. I suppose in this are, people are accustomed to not using any helmet at all. It is not because they are just outlaws or because they do not dread the police officer arresting them and ticketing them. I guess it is because there is an established norm that in this are it is okay not to use helmet.
I was once ticketed by police around this area (it was 500 meters aways) because i did not use any helmet at all. But it was at 1 a.m. When i delivered my friend home. The police was conducting a December inspection (usually at year end, police conduct this special operation). It is a special operation where there are several police officers at certain locations they project many traffic violators would pass.
I saw a couple sitting beside me. I assume they are a couple because they look intimate. It is generally not the case of brother and sister because most likely they will not chat that much as they perhaps have known each other very well. It is a generally accepted notion that brother and sister are very close in Indonesia, hence, it is very likely that the two people sitting beside me are a couple. In addition, they dont seem to be an old friend meeting each other because they would have otherwise looked very enthusiastic about each other's story. They seem to know each other very well, just like a couple should be, and they yet seem a bit awkward about each other, with the shy look and almost attention-craving attitude. It looks to me that they know each other's story (at least most of it) but they still want to chat. The guy is laughing right now and the woman seems to be happily upset (she looked down on her food while making a face, with her lips tightened up and therefore looks bigger and forward from the original position). I think it is because he seems to be joking about her or her misfortune, yet the woman has mixed feeling about it because on the one hand she does not like to be 'bullied' and embarrassed but on the other hand the guy was happy and the joke becomes a conversation subject that keeps the situation alive. I suppose silence will be awfully awkward and unpleasant. Now the conversation seems to be serious. The woman keeps on looking down. She played with her food by using the spoon to take up a portion of rice while her spoon is already full. I dont know whether it is because she has not finished swallowing, not in mood to eat suddenly, Or whether is constantly thinking about something, hence she just needs an object to constantly jeep h body moving. She smiles a bit, not a bit laugh. Her lips just open a bit where I can see her teeth, quite white, clean and well structured. Of course, I occasionally have to look away while observing her and the conversation at her table which is just beside my table separated by 1 meter. Again, it is because it is not polite to stare. People may have several prejudices, e.g., I am a psycho, an impolite person, or attracted to the woman who already has a boyfriend or maybe a husband.
There is an old couple. I did not notice when they came into the restaurant, but they sat across me separated by roughly 2,5 meter. The guy seems like a tidy person. He wears casual attire yet he looks so tidy with the watch on his left hand and a polo shirt quite well dressed. His wife on the other hand looks very fancy with a brown bag and a seemingly expensive cloth or even if it is a cheap dress, she seems to act like it is an expensive cloth. Again perhaps it is just my assumption, she is perhaps attracted to fashion irrespective of whether the cloth is expensive or not. But under the circumstances judging from (although short amount of observation) the culture around here and her attitude, it does not seem that she appreciates fashion that much. She is more like a follower and trend-conformist rather than a fashionista or even a fashionista in progress. The guy looks very serious even when he is eating his food. Is that how I look when I live my bitter person character?
I am quite tired and my back is hurting. I suppose I need to pay for my food, stop typing this on my iPad2 (i love my iPad2) and go home to take a bath. Maybe it will make me feel better about my loved one being away on a vacation.
I am always fascinated by how people sit down in ordered tables and then wait for their foods. There are children, grandma, and a middle-aged. They are families, individuals, and they are waitresses.
One kid is playing a PS. He is very drawn into it. I am trying to observe what he is doing, trying to get into his head. Is that what I feel when I was small and played with a game gadget while going out with my parents? Of course, i am waiting for the food as well as i am also hungry. But it is just fun to be so engrossed into something i really like doing, something that takes my mind off of things. Like writing this piece. Writing this piece in such a mess of order is not something i usually do. I am a lawyer and a legal scholar. What we do is we must think of every possible structure, argument, and counter argument before even writing it. This piece is a mess in terms of structure and coherence. But i simply want to write something and then reflect on it.
Now the food has arrived. The kid is still playing with the PS while eating. His mom and 2 other aunties (seems to be) are eating with full consciousness of eating to get full. They have a shared plate which sort of indicates intimacy. They are chatting over some issues about their maids. It looks serious. But the kid does not respond to it whatsoever.
I, then, see right on their side, a man who seems to be the father of that kid. He is moving toward the kid's direction and eating up some of the kid's food. The guy seems to like it very much. Oh it turns out that he is waiting for his food to be delivered and decided to eat up some of the kid's food. He, then, went back to his cellphone, playing with a blackberry.
*Blackberry is a popular device in Indonesia by 2011.
Right now i am waiting for my food. The guy seems to forget that i have ordered my food (my noodle) and of course the egg (it is called telur mata sapi, which literally means cow's eyes as the egg resembles cow's eyes shape). I will usually be very mad about this as the cook delivered the food to the person who came later than I did. I think this may be a good way of living a different kind of life. You know, as a lawyer, I am typically all the efficient guy and righteous. I dont tolerate people being inefficient, not especially when he delivered someone's food first while i have ordered first. Now I am going to talk to him as I am hungry and I need to eat.
I have talked to the guy and it turns out that he was cooking a huge portion of noodle for roughly 8 plates. The reason why he delivered the food to someone else first is because that person ordered fried rice and it seems the stall has ready fried rice, but not noodles. So I was wrong to assume to he forgot my order. Now I would like to eat...
While I am eating, I see that kid does not finish the food. It looks like it is one-third of the original portion. He does not seem to be interested in the food anymore. He went back to his game gadget. Occasionally, he would take a small piece of his food and eat it while playing game. His grandma joked about him not wanting to finish the food. I wandered why his grandma was laughing at all. What is so funny about it? I suppose because his grandma thought he was a funny kid. I still wonder why the grandma was laughing at all.
I lit up a cigarette after I finish my food. I always have this precaution that some people are perhaps are not happy at all about me smoking. There are several reasons. One, perhaps, is because they dont like the smell of cigarette or second because they perceive smoke from cigarette to be unhealthy. I, then observe around me whether people are noticing me or not. They were 2 glances. And as a cultural convention, i suppose, it is not polite to stare at someone, so their stares usually end as soon as I glance back.
There is a big guy who just arrives at the restaurant. He seems to come alone and doesnt seem to be waiting for anyone. He is almost bald and his body is well-built. I suppose he is a body builder or an army member. There is another guy who has just come in. He was engrossed in his cell phone. He looks like a business person (not a wealthy one). He looks quite decent yet almost poor. But it does not make sense because he is holding a blackberry that i know is quite expensive. It perhaps costs more than Rp 5 million. But there are a lot of assumptions here. Credit system for blackberry is rampant. I mean he may be paying installments for that piece of blackberry or he may steal it. But I will assign benefit of doubt for him, that is to think that he did not steal that blackberry. I wonder what he is doing. He has been staring at the blackberry for more than 5 minutes. Now the big, almost bald, body-building guy is also playing with his cellphone. Ok, now he is eating. He looks very serious about the blackberry. It is as almost as something very urgent and important is going on. Perhaps, his business, family member problem? Oh, it turns out that he was waiting for his food for a take away. He is not eating in the restaurant.
He took out a Rp 50.000 piece of money, paid his food and then left. He took his car key out of his pocket. At least, it looks like a car key. Oh, it is a motorcycle key. The key just resembles a car key very much. He left using a motorbike without a helmet. I suppose in this are, people are accustomed to not using any helmet at all. It is not because they are just outlaws or because they do not dread the police officer arresting them and ticketing them. I guess it is because there is an established norm that in this are it is okay not to use helmet.
I was once ticketed by police around this area (it was 500 meters aways) because i did not use any helmet at all. But it was at 1 a.m. When i delivered my friend home. The police was conducting a December inspection (usually at year end, police conduct this special operation). It is a special operation where there are several police officers at certain locations they project many traffic violators would pass.
I saw a couple sitting beside me. I assume they are a couple because they look intimate. It is generally not the case of brother and sister because most likely they will not chat that much as they perhaps have known each other very well. It is a generally accepted notion that brother and sister are very close in Indonesia, hence, it is very likely that the two people sitting beside me are a couple. In addition, they dont seem to be an old friend meeting each other because they would have otherwise looked very enthusiastic about each other's story. They seem to know each other very well, just like a couple should be, and they yet seem a bit awkward about each other, with the shy look and almost attention-craving attitude. It looks to me that they know each other's story (at least most of it) but they still want to chat. The guy is laughing right now and the woman seems to be happily upset (she looked down on her food while making a face, with her lips tightened up and therefore looks bigger and forward from the original position). I think it is because he seems to be joking about her or her misfortune, yet the woman has mixed feeling about it because on the one hand she does not like to be 'bullied' and embarrassed but on the other hand the guy was happy and the joke becomes a conversation subject that keeps the situation alive. I suppose silence will be awfully awkward and unpleasant. Now the conversation seems to be serious. The woman keeps on looking down. She played with her food by using the spoon to take up a portion of rice while her spoon is already full. I dont know whether it is because she has not finished swallowing, not in mood to eat suddenly, Or whether is constantly thinking about something, hence she just needs an object to constantly jeep h body moving. She smiles a bit, not a bit laugh. Her lips just open a bit where I can see her teeth, quite white, clean and well structured. Of course, I occasionally have to look away while observing her and the conversation at her table which is just beside my table separated by 1 meter. Again, it is because it is not polite to stare. People may have several prejudices, e.g., I am a psycho, an impolite person, or attracted to the woman who already has a boyfriend or maybe a husband.
There is an old couple. I did not notice when they came into the restaurant, but they sat across me separated by roughly 2,5 meter. The guy seems like a tidy person. He wears casual attire yet he looks so tidy with the watch on his left hand and a polo shirt quite well dressed. His wife on the other hand looks very fancy with a brown bag and a seemingly expensive cloth or even if it is a cheap dress, she seems to act like it is an expensive cloth. Again perhaps it is just my assumption, she is perhaps attracted to fashion irrespective of whether the cloth is expensive or not. But under the circumstances judging from (although short amount of observation) the culture around here and her attitude, it does not seem that she appreciates fashion that much. She is more like a follower and trend-conformist rather than a fashionista or even a fashionista in progress. The guy looks very serious even when he is eating his food. Is that how I look when I live my bitter person character?
I am quite tired and my back is hurting. I suppose I need to pay for my food, stop typing this on my iPad2 (i love my iPad2) and go home to take a bath. Maybe it will make me feel better about my loved one being away on a vacation.
Monday, May 30, 2011
A piece of my comrade's beautiful expression of human's pain
I am extending a beautiful piece of my comrade's beautiful expression of human's pain.
It captures some parts of me. Indeed, it is a translation of her state of mind and soul. Beauty in the presence of pain.
"Atrophy
By the cover of night, the demons prey
In chronic pain, the languishing physique
bears a soul which grows increasingly weak.
But then help arrives with the light of day
as unknowing angels flit closeby.
But in truth the forces at play are sly...
In these precious hours they're held at bay.
And temporarily, the spirit forgets,
putting aside what loneliness begets.
Soon enough they will come out to play.
As the presence of others wanes, It shines.
Precocious irrationality blurs lines.
Despite reality, be what it may,
unattended, the dark thoughts pervade.
Through the mind, the floods invade.
Though strong, they cannot possibly stay.
Still, this heart will be repeatedly torn;
the psyche, confused, now content, then forlorn."
It captures some parts of me. Indeed, it is a translation of her state of mind and soul. Beauty in the presence of pain.
"Atrophy
By the cover of night, the demons prey
In chronic pain, the languishing physique
bears a soul which grows increasingly weak.
But then help arrives with the light of day
as unknowing angels flit closeby.
But in truth the forces at play are sly...
In these precious hours they're held at bay.
And temporarily, the spirit forgets,
putting aside what loneliness begets.
Soon enough they will come out to play.
As the presence of others wanes, It shines.
Precocious irrationality blurs lines.
Despite reality, be what it may,
unattended, the dark thoughts pervade.
Through the mind, the floods invade.
Though strong, they cannot possibly stay.
Still, this heart will be repeatedly torn;
the psyche, confused, now content, then forlorn."
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Good bye and break up
Good bye semantically denotes a wish that a physical separation from someone will be of a good nature. Good bye... wishing that after the separation one is still good and will be better off after it.
What language often fails to capture is the past and the future of the good bye. Context of goodbye differs from one person to another person and from one situation to another situation.
We will then ask ourselves: why do we say goodbye? what do we mean by good bye when we actually say it? Do we really wish someone a good life after that 'bye'?
Why do we care what kind of life that someone will face after the 'bye'? Do we distinguish the gradation of "good" from one person to another person? Is there a time when we wish someone a "good" bye with an expectation of a better life than the life of another person who we also "good" bye to?
What about a loved one in the sense of eros and amorous nature? What do we really mean by "good bye"?
Do we really wish he/she will be happier with someone else because we cannot provide such happiness in a silver plate? Do we honestly want her to be happier?
Then we ask ourselves, is it our failures that such happiness state cannot be achieved when the loved one was with us? Do we blame it on circumstances? Do we just give up on circumstances?
It is once postulated as a conventional wisdom that to love is to release, for in stranglehold one cannot breathe and remains in pain.
To love is to let go, but to love is also to long for companionship. Is it not paradoxical or even oxymoronic at the same time?
How can you want to die and at the same time want to live? How can black be white at the same space and time continuum, in the same respect?
Conundrum ...
I have said goodbye too many times that i lose track of what it shall mean. I have lost track of how to quantify and qualify the meaning of the word I have said. Perhaps it is a curse and a gift to provide meaning to the word. Perhaps, it is best to leave the word as a mystery. Looking out for it will do nothing good by entrapment in a labyrinth of conundrum.
Good bye, i guess. the best meaning i can assign is I have done all I can... Not cirucmstances nor cosmic conspiracy that compel a "bye", but it is you... I will revoltingly say "good" in the bye and sincerely mean it... because in the absence of my 5 senses of your future condition, i can only hope you do well... though it is out of my control... and as a selfish species of bacteria and a limit of memory and sense of observation, a "good bye" does nothing better than "utter silence", because a wish not realized and responded is as good as "a semantic glitch without substance"
What language often fails to capture is the past and the future of the good bye. Context of goodbye differs from one person to another person and from one situation to another situation.
We will then ask ourselves: why do we say goodbye? what do we mean by good bye when we actually say it? Do we really wish someone a good life after that 'bye'?
Why do we care what kind of life that someone will face after the 'bye'? Do we distinguish the gradation of "good" from one person to another person? Is there a time when we wish someone a "good" bye with an expectation of a better life than the life of another person who we also "good" bye to?
What about a loved one in the sense of eros and amorous nature? What do we really mean by "good bye"?
Do we really wish he/she will be happier with someone else because we cannot provide such happiness in a silver plate? Do we honestly want her to be happier?
Then we ask ourselves, is it our failures that such happiness state cannot be achieved when the loved one was with us? Do we blame it on circumstances? Do we just give up on circumstances?
It is once postulated as a conventional wisdom that to love is to release, for in stranglehold one cannot breathe and remains in pain.
To love is to let go, but to love is also to long for companionship. Is it not paradoxical or even oxymoronic at the same time?
How can you want to die and at the same time want to live? How can black be white at the same space and time continuum, in the same respect?
Conundrum ...
I have said goodbye too many times that i lose track of what it shall mean. I have lost track of how to quantify and qualify the meaning of the word I have said. Perhaps it is a curse and a gift to provide meaning to the word. Perhaps, it is best to leave the word as a mystery. Looking out for it will do nothing good by entrapment in a labyrinth of conundrum.
Good bye, i guess. the best meaning i can assign is I have done all I can... Not cirucmstances nor cosmic conspiracy that compel a "bye", but it is you... I will revoltingly say "good" in the bye and sincerely mean it... because in the absence of my 5 senses of your future condition, i can only hope you do well... though it is out of my control... and as a selfish species of bacteria and a limit of memory and sense of observation, a "good bye" does nothing better than "utter silence", because a wish not realized and responded is as good as "a semantic glitch without substance"
Friday, May 06, 2011
the wise and the strong
The wise and the strong make mistakes and fail miserably. But he will stand up and walk the same path again. and this process will repeat.
The fool and the weak make mistakes and fail miserably. And, she will deny such mistakes, and deny the chance for herself and him to stand up and walk the same path again.
The fool and the weak make mistakes and fail miserably. And, she will deny such mistakes, and deny the chance for herself and him to stand up and walk the same path again.
a hope
Dear myself again,
You can sustain all bumps, all strikes, all hardships... because you know there will be a beautiful end on this horrendous road, in entrapment with dolphin girl.
You can change, amorph, adapt, to anything... You are strong and plastic. You will change anything with or without great regrets for her happiness...
You have hope...
You can sustain all bumps, all strikes, all hardships... because you know there will be a beautiful end on this horrendous road, in entrapment with dolphin girl.
You can change, amorph, adapt, to anything... You are strong and plastic. You will change anything with or without great regrets for her happiness...
You have hope...
Hi there my self...
Hi there myself. reflected in the mirror. You are my past, but closer in seconds than I am now.
We have argued hard, bled hard, hemorrhaged to death. Let's make a pact. One beyond fact. One with tact.
It is in hurting that we learn to feel. Maybe it is late... but it never dissipates.
What is real and not? Unfortunately, I cannot provide you the answer, myself. I cannot...
But we maintain what we feel and hold on to it, though we are being squeezed and tromped in the calamity of travelling back and forth between the dream land and the reality. Let it go... We cannot control everything... There is a leap of faith to take.
We may be hurt. We may fall down. We may be devastated. We may be crushed.
But what makes a life is to stand up afterwards... and walk in great agony.
And smile while doing that. Because life is too tasty for us to avoid the vinegar of life. Even when death is ready to pick us up, deliver with smile and chivalry.
Because that is the end of a worthy life, and the beginning of another beautiful journey with the dolphin girl...
We have argued hard, bled hard, hemorrhaged to death. Let's make a pact. One beyond fact. One with tact.
It is in hurting that we learn to feel. Maybe it is late... but it never dissipates.
What is real and not? Unfortunately, I cannot provide you the answer, myself. I cannot...
But we maintain what we feel and hold on to it, though we are being squeezed and tromped in the calamity of travelling back and forth between the dream land and the reality. Let it go... We cannot control everything... There is a leap of faith to take.
We may be hurt. We may fall down. We may be devastated. We may be crushed.
But what makes a life is to stand up afterwards... and walk in great agony.
And smile while doing that. Because life is too tasty for us to avoid the vinegar of life. Even when death is ready to pick us up, deliver with smile and chivalry.
Because that is the end of a worthy life, and the beginning of another beautiful journey with the dolphin girl...
a journey going back home...
what can be lost can be found; what can be broken can be fixed; what can be hurt can feel; what can be dismayed can be rejoiced; what can be mourned can be reminisced; what can be erred can be repented...--- self-generated in contemplating misery and rancor
Monday, July 26, 2010
Schools of philosophy
1. Solipsism: I am here, you said I am not. May be I am here and maybe I am not here?
2. Determinism: I am already here
3. Utilitarianism: Are you happy that I am here?
4. Epicureanism: Since I am here let s party and fornicate!
5. Positivism: How can you be sure that I am here?
6. Absurdism: Hey, positivism, you are not here and will never be here.
7. Objectivism: I am here, but “I” am not here.. Who am “I”?
8. Secular humanism: Nah, I dont believe it. I am not here
9. Nihilism: Argh...Here, not here... What s the difference?
10. Existentialism: I am here! Here I am! I am here, am I not?
11. Foolism: Huh? come again?
2. Determinism: I am already here
3. Utilitarianism: Are you happy that I am here?
4. Epicureanism: Since I am here let s party and fornicate!
5. Positivism: How can you be sure that I am here?
6. Absurdism: Hey, positivism, you are not here and will never be here.
7. Objectivism: I am here, but “I” am not here.. Who am “I”?
8. Secular humanism: Nah, I dont believe it. I am not here
9. Nihilism: Argh...Here, not here... What s the difference?
10. Existentialism: I am here! Here I am! I am here, am I not?
11. Foolism: Huh? come again?
Sunday, July 25, 2010
A fraction of memory...
I am nothing but crystals of shattered glasses.
I take no form, no reflection, no substance, and no existence
I am seen but unseen... for there are many layers upon no layer
I must feel, but posited with no apparatus of feeling.
I envy but cannot feel...
It is non-existence of feeling... it is much worse than being numb.
The cosmic existence defines my non-existence?
I wander,through indefinite infinity...
Some people say I am dreaming...
but I dont dream... I am a dream... that is posited to be real when people sleep... and unposited when people wake up... I sleep to wake up...
I am a fraction of memory... I am the seen unseen beauty and pain..
I take no form, no reflection, no substance, and no existence
I am seen but unseen... for there are many layers upon no layer
I must feel, but posited with no apparatus of feeling.
I envy but cannot feel...
It is non-existence of feeling... it is much worse than being numb.
The cosmic existence defines my non-existence?
I wander,through indefinite infinity...
Some people say I am dreaming...
but I dont dream... I am a dream... that is posited to be real when people sleep... and unposited when people wake up... I sleep to wake up...
I am a fraction of memory... I am the seen unseen beauty and pain..
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Rancor
Brooklyn's finest affirms my loathsome and feeds me with grander anger... YOU TURN THEM INTO MONSTERS... Gauge that pain and rancor... Of course none of you can, fucking lesser mortals! FUCKING Mediocre minds and FUCKING TIMID CONFORMIST!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Friday, July 09, 2010
Exercise 2. regardez et penser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition being false would imply a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be true.
In other words, to prove by contradiction that P, show that or its equivalent . Then, since implies a contradiction, conclude P.
Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile. It is a particular kind of the more general form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.
A classic proof by contradiction from mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. If it were rational, it could be expressed as a fraction a/b in lowest terms, where a and b are integers, at least one of which is odd. But if a/b = √2, then a2 = 2b2. Therefore a2 must be even. Because the square of an odd number is odd, that in turn implies that a is even. This means that b must be odd because a/b is in lowest terms.
On the other hand, if a is even, then a2 is a multiple of 4. If a2 is a multiple of 4 and a2 = 2b2, then 2b2 is a multiple of 4, and therefore b2 is even, and so is b.
So b is odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption—that √2 can be expressed as a fraction—must be false.
[edit]The length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two legs
The method of proof by contradiction has also been used to show that for any non-degenerate Right triangle, the length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two remaining sides. The proof relies on the Pythagorean theorem. Letting c be the length of the hypotenuse and a and b the lengths of the legs, the claim is that a + b > c. As usual, we start the proof by negating the claim and assuming that a + b ≤ c. The next step is to show that this leads to a contradiction. Squaring both sides, we have (a + b)2 ≤ c2 or, equivalently, a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. A triangle is non-degenerate if each edge has positive length, so we may assume that a and b are greater than 0. Therefore, a2 + b2 < a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. Taking out the middle term, we have a2 + b2 < c2. We know from the Pythagorean theorem that a2 + b2 = c2. We now have a contradiction since strict inequality and equality are mutually exclusive. The latter was a result of the Pythagorean theorem and the former the assumption that a + b ≤ c. The contradiction means that it is impossible for both to be true and we know that the Pythagorean theorem holds. It follows that our assumption that a + b ≤ c must be false and hence a + b > c, proving the claim.
[edit]In mathematics
Say we wish to disprove proposition p. The procedure is to show that assuming p leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, p must be false.
Say instead we wish to prove proposition p. We can proceed by assuming "not p" (i.e. that p is false), and show that it leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, "not p" must be false, and so, according to the law of the excluded middle, p is true.
In symbols:
To disprove p: one uses the tautology (p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → ¬p, where R is any proposition and the ∧ symbol is taken to mean "and". Assuming p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply ¬p.
To prove p: one uses the tautology (¬p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → p where R is any proposition. Assuming ¬p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that ¬p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply p.
For a simple example of the first kind, consider the proposition, ¬p: "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0". In a proof by contradiction, we start by assuming the opposite, p: that there is a smallest rational number, say, r0.
Now let x = r0/2. Then x is a rational number greater than 0 and less than r0. (In the above symbolic argument, "x is the smallest rational number" would be R and "r0 (which is different from x) is the smallest rational number" would be ¬R.) But that contradicts our initial assumption, p, that r0 was the smallest rational number. So we can conclude that the original proposition, ¬p, must be true — "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0".
the choice of which statement is R and which is ¬R is arbitrary.]
It is common to use this first type of argument with propositions such as the one above, concerning the non-existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that such an object exists, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object does not exist. For other examples, see proof that the square root of 2 is not rational and Cantor's diagonal argument.
On the other hand, it is also common to use arguments of the second type concerning the existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that the object doesn't exist, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object must exist. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of argument as universally valid. See further Nonconstructive proof.
In mathematical logic
In mathematical logic, the proof by contradiction is represented as:
if
then
or
if
then
In the above, p is the proposition we wish to prove or disprove; and S is a set of statements which are given as true — these could be, for example, the axioms of the theory we are working in, or earlier theorems we can build upon. We consider p, or the negation of p, in addition to S; if this leads to a logical contradiction F, then we can conclude that the statements in S lead to the negation of p, or p itself, respectively.
Note that the set-theoretic union, in some contexts closely related to logical disjunction (or), is used here for sets of statements in such a way that it is more related to logical conjunction (and).
Notation
Proofs by contradiction sometimes end with the word "Contradiction!". Isaac Barrow and Baermann used the notation Q.E.A., for "quod est absurdum" ("which is absurd"), along the lines of Q.E.D., but this notation is rarely used today.[1] A graphical symbol sometimes used for contradictions is a downwards zigzag arrow "lightning" symbol (U+21AF: ↯), for example in Davey and Priestley.[2] Others sometimes used include a pair of opposing arrows (as or ), struck-out arrows (), a stylized form of hash (such as U+2A33: ⨳), or the "reference mark" (U+203B: ※).[3][4] The "up tack" symbol (U+22A5: ⊥) used by philosophers and logicians (see contradiction) also appears, but is often avoided due to its usage for orthogonality.
Quotations
In the words of G. H. Hardy (A Mathematician's Apology), "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game."
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition being false would imply a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be true.
In other words, to prove by contradiction that P, show that or its equivalent . Then, since implies a contradiction, conclude P.
Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile. It is a particular kind of the more general form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.
A classic proof by contradiction from mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. If it were rational, it could be expressed as a fraction a/b in lowest terms, where a and b are integers, at least one of which is odd. But if a/b = √2, then a2 = 2b2. Therefore a2 must be even. Because the square of an odd number is odd, that in turn implies that a is even. This means that b must be odd because a/b is in lowest terms.
On the other hand, if a is even, then a2 is a multiple of 4. If a2 is a multiple of 4 and a2 = 2b2, then 2b2 is a multiple of 4, and therefore b2 is even, and so is b.
So b is odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption—that √2 can be expressed as a fraction—must be false.
[edit]The length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two legs
The method of proof by contradiction has also been used to show that for any non-degenerate Right triangle, the length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two remaining sides. The proof relies on the Pythagorean theorem. Letting c be the length of the hypotenuse and a and b the lengths of the legs, the claim is that a + b > c. As usual, we start the proof by negating the claim and assuming that a + b ≤ c. The next step is to show that this leads to a contradiction. Squaring both sides, we have (a + b)2 ≤ c2 or, equivalently, a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. A triangle is non-degenerate if each edge has positive length, so we may assume that a and b are greater than 0. Therefore, a2 + b2 < a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. Taking out the middle term, we have a2 + b2 < c2. We know from the Pythagorean theorem that a2 + b2 = c2. We now have a contradiction since strict inequality and equality are mutually exclusive. The latter was a result of the Pythagorean theorem and the former the assumption that a + b ≤ c. The contradiction means that it is impossible for both to be true and we know that the Pythagorean theorem holds. It follows that our assumption that a + b ≤ c must be false and hence a + b > c, proving the claim.
[edit]In mathematics
Say we wish to disprove proposition p. The procedure is to show that assuming p leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, p must be false.
Say instead we wish to prove proposition p. We can proceed by assuming "not p" (i.e. that p is false), and show that it leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, "not p" must be false, and so, according to the law of the excluded middle, p is true.
In symbols:
To disprove p: one uses the tautology (p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → ¬p, where R is any proposition and the ∧ symbol is taken to mean "and". Assuming p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply ¬p.
To prove p: one uses the tautology (¬p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → p where R is any proposition. Assuming ¬p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that ¬p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply p.
For a simple example of the first kind, consider the proposition, ¬p: "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0". In a proof by contradiction, we start by assuming the opposite, p: that there is a smallest rational number, say, r0.
Now let x = r0/2. Then x is a rational number greater than 0 and less than r0. (In the above symbolic argument, "x is the smallest rational number" would be R and "r0 (which is different from x) is the smallest rational number" would be ¬R.) But that contradicts our initial assumption, p, that r0 was the smallest rational number. So we can conclude that the original proposition, ¬p, must be true — "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0".
the choice of which statement is R and which is ¬R is arbitrary.]
It is common to use this first type of argument with propositions such as the one above, concerning the non-existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that such an object exists, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object does not exist. For other examples, see proof that the square root of 2 is not rational and Cantor's diagonal argument.
On the other hand, it is also common to use arguments of the second type concerning the existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that the object doesn't exist, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object must exist. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of argument as universally valid. See further Nonconstructive proof.
In mathematical logic
In mathematical logic, the proof by contradiction is represented as:
if
then
or
if
then
In the above, p is the proposition we wish to prove or disprove; and S is a set of statements which are given as true — these could be, for example, the axioms of the theory we are working in, or earlier theorems we can build upon. We consider p, or the negation of p, in addition to S; if this leads to a logical contradiction F, then we can conclude that the statements in S lead to the negation of p, or p itself, respectively.
Note that the set-theoretic union, in some contexts closely related to logical disjunction (or), is used here for sets of statements in such a way that it is more related to logical conjunction (and).
Notation
Proofs by contradiction sometimes end with the word "Contradiction!". Isaac Barrow and Baermann used the notation Q.E.A., for "quod est absurdum" ("which is absurd"), along the lines of Q.E.D., but this notation is rarely used today.[1] A graphical symbol sometimes used for contradictions is a downwards zigzag arrow "lightning" symbol (U+21AF: ↯), for example in Davey and Priestley.[2] Others sometimes used include a pair of opposing arrows (as or ), struck-out arrows (), a stylized form of hash (such as U+2A33: ⨳), or the "reference mark" (U+203B: ※).[3][4] The "up tack" symbol (U+22A5: ⊥) used by philosophers and logicians (see contradiction) also appears, but is often avoided due to its usage for orthogonality.
Quotations
In the words of G. H. Hardy (A Mathematician's Apology), "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game."
Logic lesson I must review before hitting the wonderland
Imported from: wikipedia
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence
A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true.
Consider the following statement, attributed to physicist Niels Bohr: "The opposite of every great idea is another great idea." If this statement is true, then it would certainly qualify as a great idea - it would automatically lead to a corresponding great idea for every great idea already in existence. But if the statement itself is a great idea, its opposite ("the opposite of every great idea is not a great idea") must also be a great idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, the statement contradicts itself, being both true and untrue.[2]
Some legal usage, and some common usage, depends on a much wider definition of reductio ad absurdum than proof by contradiction, where it is argued a proposition should be rejected because it has merely undesirable (though perhaps not actually self-contradictory) consequences. In a strict logical sense, this might be reductio ad incommodum rather than ad absurdum - since in formal logic, 'absurdity' applies only to impossible self-contradiction.[1]
For example, consider the proposition Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (literally: 'for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell'). This is also known as ad coelum. A legal reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition might be:
Suppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong.
(This is a straw man fallacy if it is used to prove that the practical legal use of "ad coelum" is wrong, since ad coelum is only actually ever used to delineate rights in cases of tree branches that grow over boundary fences, mining rights, etc.[3] Reductio ad absurdum applied to ad coelum is, in this case, claiming that ad coelum is saying something that it is not. The reductio ad absurdum above argues only against taking ad coelum to its fullest extent.)
It is only in everyday usage that this could acceptably be called a reductio ad absurdum: it is simply reductio ad absurdum being applied to an originally flawed reductio ad absurdum argument where the extremes were not rational for the original proposition.
Reductio Ad Absurdum in Euclid's Elements
In his Elements, Book III Proposition 5, Euclid demonstrates that if two circles cut one another, they do not have the same center. He begins by assuming that the opposite is true, that two circles may cut one another and have the same center. He then shows that if this happen, the radius of one circle would be both equal to and less than the radius of the other, which is impossible.
Reductio Ad Absurdum in Popular Culture
In an episode of the American TV series The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon refers to a Reductio Ad Absurdum of Leonard's. It is a misuse of the term, which he defines as "The logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result." The fallacy he describes is actually an Appeal to Ridicule.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence
A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true.
Consider the following statement, attributed to physicist Niels Bohr: "The opposite of every great idea is another great idea." If this statement is true, then it would certainly qualify as a great idea - it would automatically lead to a corresponding great idea for every great idea already in existence. But if the statement itself is a great idea, its opposite ("the opposite of every great idea is not a great idea") must also be a great idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, the statement contradicts itself, being both true and untrue.[2]
Some legal usage, and some common usage, depends on a much wider definition of reductio ad absurdum than proof by contradiction, where it is argued a proposition should be rejected because it has merely undesirable (though perhaps not actually self-contradictory) consequences. In a strict logical sense, this might be reductio ad incommodum rather than ad absurdum - since in formal logic, 'absurdity' applies only to impossible self-contradiction.[1]
For example, consider the proposition Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (literally: 'for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell'). This is also known as ad coelum. A legal reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition might be:
Suppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong.
(This is a straw man fallacy if it is used to prove that the practical legal use of "ad coelum" is wrong, since ad coelum is only actually ever used to delineate rights in cases of tree branches that grow over boundary fences, mining rights, etc.[3] Reductio ad absurdum applied to ad coelum is, in this case, claiming that ad coelum is saying something that it is not. The reductio ad absurdum above argues only against taking ad coelum to its fullest extent.)
It is only in everyday usage that this could acceptably be called a reductio ad absurdum: it is simply reductio ad absurdum being applied to an originally flawed reductio ad absurdum argument where the extremes were not rational for the original proposition.
Reductio Ad Absurdum in Euclid's Elements
In his Elements, Book III Proposition 5, Euclid demonstrates that if two circles cut one another, they do not have the same center. He begins by assuming that the opposite is true, that two circles may cut one another and have the same center. He then shows that if this happen, the radius of one circle would be both equal to and less than the radius of the other, which is impossible.
Reductio Ad Absurdum in Popular Culture
In an episode of the American TV series The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon refers to a Reductio Ad Absurdum of Leonard's. It is a misuse of the term, which he defines as "The logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result." The fallacy he describes is actually an Appeal to Ridicule.
striking the equilibrium: the why and how?
There was once in the past (when I was someone else) where my teacher told me that "Jo is a good buddy, he just intentionally shows his bad boy side all the times"
I think it is true. So often I find myself caught in a situation where opportunities of friendship and life joy present themselves, but I push them away, shun them under the notion (logically processed "foods") that they shun me anyway. Why should i learn to gravitate to their direction instead they to my direction? If compromise is the value, why should i gravitate there by exerting more effort?
The right and the fun are two mutually exclusive choice it seems.
Yin and yang tells me that life is right when i strike an equilibrium. in economics it s the precise price of goods where producers enjoy benefits, consumers enjoy proportional price and competition is protected and encouraged.
Damn, it s hard to strike such an equilibrium.
Perhaps I need to make a choice soon.. Humans are limited, i cant be the best at everything... Oh, that s crap.. I can even argue along that line much better than anyone else. It s the loser's argument...
sigh... I am completely aware of the consequences of choosing this path of life. or am i innately characterized this way? nobody can answer that, worst, nobody gives a damn about it...
Maybe one day we will all be able to achieve that state of equilibrium when we can sit down and feel content with whatever we have while still aggressively and passionately pursue the truth and the ultimate wisdom.
One thing I would really like to inquire Sidharta Gautama is "How can humans achieve equilibrium when inequilibrium is required to support equilibrium? Are u saying some humans must be sacrificed so that some can achieve enlightenment?"
You dont just sit up there or around us. You come down here and tell me.. explain to me... engross me in it...
I need answers.. in whatever form...
I think it is true. So often I find myself caught in a situation where opportunities of friendship and life joy present themselves, but I push them away, shun them under the notion (logically processed "foods") that they shun me anyway. Why should i learn to gravitate to their direction instead they to my direction? If compromise is the value, why should i gravitate there by exerting more effort?
The right and the fun are two mutually exclusive choice it seems.
Yin and yang tells me that life is right when i strike an equilibrium. in economics it s the precise price of goods where producers enjoy benefits, consumers enjoy proportional price and competition is protected and encouraged.
Damn, it s hard to strike such an equilibrium.
Perhaps I need to make a choice soon.. Humans are limited, i cant be the best at everything... Oh, that s crap.. I can even argue along that line much better than anyone else. It s the loser's argument...
sigh... I am completely aware of the consequences of choosing this path of life. or am i innately characterized this way? nobody can answer that, worst, nobody gives a damn about it...
Maybe one day we will all be able to achieve that state of equilibrium when we can sit down and feel content with whatever we have while still aggressively and passionately pursue the truth and the ultimate wisdom.
One thing I would really like to inquire Sidharta Gautama is "How can humans achieve equilibrium when inequilibrium is required to support equilibrium? Are u saying some humans must be sacrificed so that some can achieve enlightenment?"
You dont just sit up there or around us. You come down here and tell me.. explain to me... engross me in it...
I need answers.. in whatever form...
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Decrypting the code
imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/07/might-there-have-been-just-nothing-at-all.html
Could There Have Been Just Nothing At All?
No doubt, things exist. At least I exist, and that suffices to show that something exists. But could it have been the case that nothing ever existed? Actually, there is something; but is it possible that there have been nothing? Or is it rather the case that necessarily there is something? Is it not only actually the case that there is something, but also necessarily the case that there is something? I will argue that there could not have been nothing and that therefore necessarily there is something. (Image credit.)
My thesis, then, is that necessarily, something (at least one thing) exists. I am using 'thing' as broadly as possible, to cover anything at all, of whatever category. If I am right, then it is impossible that there have been nothing at all. The type of modality in question is what is called 'broadly logical' or 'metaphysical.'
Note that Necessarily something exists does not entail Something necessarily exists. I am not asserting the second proposition, but only the first. The second says more than the first. In the patois of possible worlds, the second says that there is some one thing that exists in every possible world, whereas the first says only that every possible world is such that there is something or other in it. The first proposition is consistent with the proposition that every being is contingent, while the second is not. So the first and second propositions are logically distinct and the first does not entail the second. I am asserting only the first.
What I will be arguing, then, is not that there is a necessary being, some one being that exists in all possible worlds, but that every world has something or other in it: every possible circumstance or
situation is one in which something or other exists. That is, there is no possible world in which there is nothing at all.
You can think of merely possible worlds as maximal or total ways things might have been, and you can think of the actual world as the total way things are. My thesis is that there is no way things might have been such that nothing at all exists. But if you are uncomfortable with the jargon of possible worlds, I can translate out of it and say, simply, that it is impossible that there have been, or be, nothing at all. As a matter of metaphysical necessity, there must be something or other!
The content of my thesis now having been made clear, I proceed to give a reductio ad absurdum argument for thinking it true.
1. Let S = Something exists and N = Nothing exists, and assume for reductio that N is possibly true.
2. If N is possibly true, then S, which is true, and known to be true, is only contingently true.
Therefore
3. There are possible worlds in which S is false and possible worlds in which S is true. ( From 2, by definition of 'contingently true')
4. In the worlds in which S is true, something exists. (Because if 'Something exists' is true, then something exists.)
5. In the worlds in which S is false, it is also the case that something exists, namely, S. (For an item cannot have a property unless it exists, and so S cannot have the property of being false unless S exists)
6. Every proposition is either true, or if not true, then false. (Bivalence)
Therefore
7. Every world has something in it, hence there is no world in which nothing exists.
Therefore
8. N is not possibly true, and necessarily something exists.
If you disagree with my conclusion, then you must either show that one or more premises are either false or not reasonably maintained, or that one or more inferences are invalid, of that the argument rests on one or more dubious presuppositions
Could There Have Been Just Nothing At All?
No doubt, things exist. At least I exist, and that suffices to show that something exists. But could it have been the case that nothing ever existed? Actually, there is something; but is it possible that there have been nothing? Or is it rather the case that necessarily there is something? Is it not only actually the case that there is something, but also necessarily the case that there is something? I will argue that there could not have been nothing and that therefore necessarily there is something. (Image credit.)
My thesis, then, is that necessarily, something (at least one thing) exists. I am using 'thing' as broadly as possible, to cover anything at all, of whatever category. If I am right, then it is impossible that there have been nothing at all. The type of modality in question is what is called 'broadly logical' or 'metaphysical.'
Note that Necessarily something exists does not entail Something necessarily exists. I am not asserting the second proposition, but only the first. The second says more than the first. In the patois of possible worlds, the second says that there is some one thing that exists in every possible world, whereas the first says only that every possible world is such that there is something or other in it. The first proposition is consistent with the proposition that every being is contingent, while the second is not. So the first and second propositions are logically distinct and the first does not entail the second. I am asserting only the first.
What I will be arguing, then, is not that there is a necessary being, some one being that exists in all possible worlds, but that every world has something or other in it: every possible circumstance or
situation is one in which something or other exists. That is, there is no possible world in which there is nothing at all.
You can think of merely possible worlds as maximal or total ways things might have been, and you can think of the actual world as the total way things are. My thesis is that there is no way things might have been such that nothing at all exists. But if you are uncomfortable with the jargon of possible worlds, I can translate out of it and say, simply, that it is impossible that there have been, or be, nothing at all. As a matter of metaphysical necessity, there must be something or other!
The content of my thesis now having been made clear, I proceed to give a reductio ad absurdum argument for thinking it true.
1. Let S = Something exists and N = Nothing exists, and assume for reductio that N is possibly true.
2. If N is possibly true, then S, which is true, and known to be true, is only contingently true.
Therefore
3. There are possible worlds in which S is false and possible worlds in which S is true. ( From 2, by definition of 'contingently true')
4. In the worlds in which S is true, something exists. (Because if 'Something exists' is true, then something exists.)
5. In the worlds in which S is false, it is also the case that something exists, namely, S. (For an item cannot have a property unless it exists, and so S cannot have the property of being false unless S exists)
6. Every proposition is either true, or if not true, then false. (Bivalence)
Therefore
7. Every world has something in it, hence there is no world in which nothing exists.
Therefore
8. N is not possibly true, and necessarily something exists.
If you disagree with my conclusion, then you must either show that one or more premises are either false or not reasonably maintained, or that one or more inferences are invalid, of that the argument rests on one or more dubious presuppositions
what i think, say and do
Between thought and action lies speech, which can substitute for either. It can just as easily mask thoughtlessness as impede action.
Right speech, however, does not substitute for thought or action, but mediates them. Giving expression to thought, it enables intelligent action.
Right speech, however, does not substitute for thought or action, but mediates them. Giving expression to thought, it enables intelligent action.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Pascal and Buber on the God of the Philosophers
imported from: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/pascal-and-buber-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers.html (Bill Vallicella)
"God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob -- not of the philosophers and scholars." Thus exclaimed Blaise Pascal in the famous memorial in which he recorded the overwhelming religious/mystical experience of the night of 23 November 1654. Martin Buber comments (Eclipse of God, Humanity Books, 1952, p. 49):
These words represent Pascal's change of heart. He turned, not from a state of being where there is no God to one where there is a God, but from the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham. Overwhelmed by faith, he no longer knew what to do with the God of the philosophers; that is, with the God who occupies a definite position in a definite system of thought. The God of Abraham . . . is not suspectible of introduction into a system of thought precisely because He is God. He is beyond each and every one of those systems, absolutely and by virtue of his nature. What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. (emphasis added)
Buber Buber here expresses a sentiment often heard. We encountered it yesterday when we found Timothy Ware accusing late Scholastic theology of turning God into an abstract idea. But the sentiment is no less wrongheaded for being widespread. As I see it, it simply makes no sense to oppose the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God of religion -- to the God of philosophy. In fact, I am always astonished when otherwise distinguished thinkers retail this bogus distinction. Let's try to sort this out.
It is first of all obvious that God, if he exists, transcends every system of human thought, and cannot be reduced to any element internal to such a system whether it be a concept, a proposition, an argument, a set of arguments, etc. But by the same token, the chair I am sitting on cannot be reduced to my concept of it or the judgments I make about it. It too is transcendent of my conceptualizations and judgments. The transcendence of God, however, is a more radical form of transcendence, that of a person as opposed to that of a material object. And among persons, God is at the outer limit of transcendence.
Now if Buber were merely saying something along these lines then I would have no quarrel with him. But he is saying something more, namely, that when a philosopher in his capacity as philosopher conceptualizes God, he reduces him to a concept or idea, to something abstract, to something merely immanent to his thought, and therefore to something that is not God. In saying this, Buber commits a grotesque non sequitur. He moves from the unproblematically true
1. God by his very nature is transcendent of every system of thought or scheme of representation
to the breathtakingly false
2. Any thought about God or representation of God (such as we find, say in Aquinas's Summa Theologica) is not a thought or representation of God, but of a thought or representation, which, of course, by its very nature is not God.
As I said, I am astonished that anyone could fall into this error. When I think about something I don't in thinking about it turn it into a mere thought. When I think about my wife's body, for example, I don't turn it into a mere thought: it remains transcendent of my thought as a material thing. A fortiori, I am unable by thinking about my wife as a person, an other mind, to transmogrify her personhood into a mere concept in my mind. She remains in her interiority delightfully transcendent.
It is therefore bogus to oppose the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham, et al. There is and can be only one God. But there are different approaches to this one God. By my count, there are four ways of approaching God: by reason, by faith, by mystical experience, and by our moral sense. To employ a hackneyed metaphor, if there are four routes to the summit of a mountain, it does not follow that there are four summits, with only one of them being genuine, the others being merely immanent to their respective routes.
I should think that direct acquaintance with God via mystical/religious experience is superior to contact via faith or reason or morality. It is better to taste food than to read about it on a menu. But that's not to say that the menu is about itself: it is about the very same stuff that one encounters by eating. The fact that it is better to eat food than read about it does not imply that when one is reading one is not reading about it.
Imagine how silly it would be be for me to exclaim, while seated before a delicacy: "Food of Wolfgang Puck, Food of Julia Childs, Food of Emeril Lagasse, not of the nutritionists and menu-writers!"
"God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob -- not of the philosophers and scholars." Thus exclaimed Blaise Pascal in the famous memorial in which he recorded the overwhelming religious/mystical experience of the night of 23 November 1654. Martin Buber comments (Eclipse of God, Humanity Books, 1952, p. 49):
These words represent Pascal's change of heart. He turned, not from a state of being where there is no God to one where there is a God, but from the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham. Overwhelmed by faith, he no longer knew what to do with the God of the philosophers; that is, with the God who occupies a definite position in a definite system of thought. The God of Abraham . . . is not suspectible of introduction into a system of thought precisely because He is God. He is beyond each and every one of those systems, absolutely and by virtue of his nature. What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. (emphasis added)
Buber Buber here expresses a sentiment often heard. We encountered it yesterday when we found Timothy Ware accusing late Scholastic theology of turning God into an abstract idea. But the sentiment is no less wrongheaded for being widespread. As I see it, it simply makes no sense to oppose the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God of religion -- to the God of philosophy. In fact, I am always astonished when otherwise distinguished thinkers retail this bogus distinction. Let's try to sort this out.
It is first of all obvious that God, if he exists, transcends every system of human thought, and cannot be reduced to any element internal to such a system whether it be a concept, a proposition, an argument, a set of arguments, etc. But by the same token, the chair I am sitting on cannot be reduced to my concept of it or the judgments I make about it. It too is transcendent of my conceptualizations and judgments. The transcendence of God, however, is a more radical form of transcendence, that of a person as opposed to that of a material object. And among persons, God is at the outer limit of transcendence.
Now if Buber were merely saying something along these lines then I would have no quarrel with him. But he is saying something more, namely, that when a philosopher in his capacity as philosopher conceptualizes God, he reduces him to a concept or idea, to something abstract, to something merely immanent to his thought, and therefore to something that is not God. In saying this, Buber commits a grotesque non sequitur. He moves from the unproblematically true
1. God by his very nature is transcendent of every system of thought or scheme of representation
to the breathtakingly false
2. Any thought about God or representation of God (such as we find, say in Aquinas's Summa Theologica) is not a thought or representation of God, but of a thought or representation, which, of course, by its very nature is not God.
As I said, I am astonished that anyone could fall into this error. When I think about something I don't in thinking about it turn it into a mere thought. When I think about my wife's body, for example, I don't turn it into a mere thought: it remains transcendent of my thought as a material thing. A fortiori, I am unable by thinking about my wife as a person, an other mind, to transmogrify her personhood into a mere concept in my mind. She remains in her interiority delightfully transcendent.
It is therefore bogus to oppose the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham, et al. There is and can be only one God. But there are different approaches to this one God. By my count, there are four ways of approaching God: by reason, by faith, by mystical experience, and by our moral sense. To employ a hackneyed metaphor, if there are four routes to the summit of a mountain, it does not follow that there are four summits, with only one of them being genuine, the others being merely immanent to their respective routes.
I should think that direct acquaintance with God via mystical/religious experience is superior to contact via faith or reason or morality. It is better to taste food than to read about it on a menu. But that's not to say that the menu is about itself: it is about the very same stuff that one encounters by eating. The fact that it is better to eat food than read about it does not imply that when one is reading one is not reading about it.
Imagine how silly it would be be for me to exclaim, while seated before a delicacy: "Food of Wolfgang Puck, Food of Julia Childs, Food of Emeril Lagasse, not of the nutritionists and menu-writers!"
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Capitalist = devil in disguise of a god?
Watching Michael Moore's movie is more than just watching a movie, it is seeing through the anger and at the same time sincerity of a person i barely know.
Being born in a conservative Chinese family means money is the supreme value. It s the religion! It s the communal value! It is almost the presupposed norm. Questioning it is similar to a pagan questioning Christianity through science. It is a heresy. It is a sin. And a sin, as they promised or as prophesied, is punished severely.
Through this valley of shadow, I rebelled. I am frustrated, and hurt badly. I sense that something is wrong with it, but my whole limbs are cuffed. My community told me that money is almost the god. It is almost as I am being taught (or indoctrinated) that money is the god I must worship. Worshiping a god means I must obey non-conditionally to the end-purpose of being rich. Being rich means having the ability to devour fancy meals in fancy restaurants, to provide good (most of time excessive) prosperity to family members, to elevate social status and being respected, to become a successful individual, to be a well-rounded individual, to be the purpose of existing! and to stay in a comfort zone.
And since life is such a huge struggle, one must dare to sacrifice the others for him/herself. In a practical sense, it means employ people from the lowest caste (economic or social sense) and exploit them. Give them the hope that if you work really hard for me, you can be rich one days. It means (legally) steal from them by indirectly (provision of false hope) luring them to generate 100 for us and give them back 4 for their "salaries". It also means give them bigger hope but smaller reality for margin of self-improvement. We tell them that they can develop and improve themselves if they work/study hard. But we make sure their margin of development stays down, down there in such a way that they will never be anywhere around us to take over our business or profession. That s the way fucked up capitalists work!
That s the way big fat banks, lawfirms, financial consultants, corporations work! They enslave us under the false hope of prosperity.
Seriously, I know almost all the arguments for capitalists, efficiency, the fundamental essence of freedom, creativity, innovation, rights.. Blablabla. The idea is goddess, but severely abused in practice.
In a similar fashion, the idea and concept of most religions is good, but the goddess idea is severely abused and exploited by those in power for their pure evil greed!
I still retain a scintilla of hope for capitalism ideal. I believe there are some good left despite all the hemorrhage it suffers. But what I cannot stand is the capitalists! It s like an evil disguising itself in the form of a child. Using complete innocence for the most evil deed. It s like the most trusted father raping his own daughter. It s like the police who ought to "serve and protect" enslaving and torturing citizens.
Humans are the worst form of animals we may have ever witnessed. When someone does something immoral/socially deviant, we immediately associate him/her as an animal, with no conscience and barbaric.
You know what is worse than that animal? A fully functioning conscientious human performing more elaborate barbaric evil deeds!
Being born in a conservative Chinese family means money is the supreme value. It s the religion! It s the communal value! It is almost the presupposed norm. Questioning it is similar to a pagan questioning Christianity through science. It is a heresy. It is a sin. And a sin, as they promised or as prophesied, is punished severely.
Through this valley of shadow, I rebelled. I am frustrated, and hurt badly. I sense that something is wrong with it, but my whole limbs are cuffed. My community told me that money is almost the god. It is almost as I am being taught (or indoctrinated) that money is the god I must worship. Worshiping a god means I must obey non-conditionally to the end-purpose of being rich. Being rich means having the ability to devour fancy meals in fancy restaurants, to provide good (most of time excessive) prosperity to family members, to elevate social status and being respected, to become a successful individual, to be a well-rounded individual, to be the purpose of existing! and to stay in a comfort zone.
And since life is such a huge struggle, one must dare to sacrifice the others for him/herself. In a practical sense, it means employ people from the lowest caste (economic or social sense) and exploit them. Give them the hope that if you work really hard for me, you can be rich one days. It means (legally) steal from them by indirectly (provision of false hope) luring them to generate 100 for us and give them back 4 for their "salaries". It also means give them bigger hope but smaller reality for margin of self-improvement. We tell them that they can develop and improve themselves if they work/study hard. But we make sure their margin of development stays down, down there in such a way that they will never be anywhere around us to take over our business or profession. That s the way fucked up capitalists work!
That s the way big fat banks, lawfirms, financial consultants, corporations work! They enslave us under the false hope of prosperity.
Seriously, I know almost all the arguments for capitalists, efficiency, the fundamental essence of freedom, creativity, innovation, rights.. Blablabla. The idea is goddess, but severely abused in practice.
In a similar fashion, the idea and concept of most religions is good, but the goddess idea is severely abused and exploited by those in power for their pure evil greed!
I still retain a scintilla of hope for capitalism ideal. I believe there are some good left despite all the hemorrhage it suffers. But what I cannot stand is the capitalists! It s like an evil disguising itself in the form of a child. Using complete innocence for the most evil deed. It s like the most trusted father raping his own daughter. It s like the police who ought to "serve and protect" enslaving and torturing citizens.
Humans are the worst form of animals we may have ever witnessed. When someone does something immoral/socially deviant, we immediately associate him/her as an animal, with no conscience and barbaric.
You know what is worse than that animal? A fully functioning conscientious human performing more elaborate barbaric evil deeds!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)