Is the complicated search for the perfect love match equivalent to the search for the perfect outfit to wear on multiple occasions? There seem to be many parallels.
In both cases, there are comparable stages. In the art of shopping one must undergo the sometimes enjoyable yet dreadful practice of window shopping. This means that the so called shopper is only, at least for the time being, able to admire the would-be perfect outfits without actually acquiring them for his/her personal collection. This practice implies, of course, that one must first visit a nearly insane amount of stores in order to find possible options. Said options must have separate pieces that fit nicely with each other while also fitting flawlessly on our body once we put it on. In the same way, one tends to look for a perfect person who is to become the object of our affection. That person must possess the ideal set of characteristics that fit immaculately in a package. The search for that person takes place at countless locations and at many different times. This search is sometimes intentional and others unintentional but always unconsciously conscious.
Subsequently, one must make sure the outfit is available for sale since some stores do sell out of certain items early in the season; and more importantly if the chosen outfit is available in the searcher’s size. Otherwise, one must make sure the person who has caught one’s attention is indeed single as well as at least slightly interested in the person wanting that information is.
The next step in the road of shopping is paying a visit to the dressing room in order to try on what one has chosen. This is not always a pleasant trip since in the process one might find that the different pieces that make up the outfit are not as perfectly fitting as one judged them on the window. One might, in fact, like pieces of that outfit. At the same time, there might be other pieces that we do not like at all. Parts of that outfit might make us look gorgeous while others make us look hideous. The question to face then becomes what to do if the outfit is not so perfect after all? That inquiry is not so easy to answer when the subject that raised it happens to be a person. When we think we have found the perfect object in which to focus on affection, we simply set up a date. Such event is the equivalent of the visit to the dressing room. During the date one attempts with the best effort to become acquainted with the other person; who to our dismay more often than not turns out to be not as wonderful as we first judged. There might, in fact, be certain characteristics that we absolutely find as reasons to be devoted that person while there might be others which we encounter as outrageously unacceptable. The interrogative appears again: what to do in those instances? One must begin the search again, as we do with the outfit.
One then comes across a new difficulty: buy the outfit if one does like it or begin a relationship if the former applies to that special person. If one chooses to take the outfit home, by not means does that imply the outfit was in fact perfect, rather it was perfect for the one who bought it. One wears the outfit, but in the process the outfit suffers minor changes that prevent one from wearing it subsequently. In the same way, the person one chooses to be in a relationship with at first seems to be great. But one might begin to discover certain other traits that one does not like about that person and as a result consider a drastic measure although one usually endures in hopes that one might be wrong or that change will come about. However, one often finds that the person we have chosen also tends to suffer alterations or make mistakes. Such events might prompt us to end the relationship. Some people believe in second chances, but outfits should never be worn after one has realized they have a defect.
It seems then, the only way to find the perfect outfit is to have it tailored and meticulously cared for. Nevertheless, the secret to find our one impeccable love is simply to keep trying because love is not custom made... yet. It should enjoy, however, customized care.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Platonism for the Commoners
Is Christian theology simply a way to demystify Greek philosophy in order for the masses to understand it? While there is not a mathematical proof about this theory, there exists evidence which seems to support it.
To begin, a direct reference to the bible: St. John has the following sentence in his gospels: “In the beginning there was word and with word there was god.” That is an undeniable platonic reference. is a direct translation from the Greek which also means reason. Thus, St. John, whoever he was in order to write the gospels, must have known the other meaning of logos in order to associate it with god. Otherwise, it does not seem as something very enlightening to relate god with word.
Platonic ontology is driven by the need to find the absolute “One” which can only be reached by the reason which comes from innate ideas. In a parallel with Christianity, the “One” would be god, and the way to reach him seems to be the same, except Christianity emphasizes a different kind of reason than that to which Platonic epistemology refers to. Christianity is interested in a rather spiritual reason. However, both types of reasons are related to each other in the sense that we as human beings are born with the knowledge that, according to Platonism, there are forms and, according to Christianity, that there is a god. The highest form is the Form of the Good and is the basis for the rest. God is the basis for everything there is in Christian theology.
If Plato was the one who presented the realm of forms to humanity, then Jesus would be his equivalent since according to the gospels he came to this material world in order to teach humanity his father’s doctrine.
Plato’s Republic is one of, if not the most, influential philosophical works. In said book, Plato presents the ideal community, the ultimate rulers and the different models to rule. In the same way, the bible seems to present humanity with the idea of the perfect world through merely trying to teach how to go about building it, but refraining from showing what the finished work would look like. The Republic is a more direct guideline towards building the perfect inhabitable place. The perfect rulers are the philosophers in Plato’s word which directly relate to the priests as god’s instruments for ruling Earth.
Plato presents the metaphor of the sun. Said metaphor presents the sun as the source of “light” which in this case represents knowledge as well as the Form of the Good. This idea is sometimes interpreted to be Plato’s concept of god. The metaphor is about what the reality crucially means and how one attains the understanding of it. Likewise, god represents the essential source of light in Christianity. God is the Supreme Being the same way the Form of Good is the Supreme Form. Early Christian thought understood the forms of which Plato talks about as the thoughts of god which shows another connection.
The Allegory of the Cave is a well known passage in Plato’s Republic in which a man walks out into the sun and after experiencing light he is not longer able to live inside the cave, yet those who remained in the cave do not understand what he means when he speaks of the light. In this sense, this man has reached the light, reason, which he must share with the rest of the people with whom he was on the cave in order for those who remained to also become possessors of light. Otherwise, the one man who has found the light would become a bizarre creature to his past companions. In the same way, god’s word should be spread, the gospels claim. If one becomes acquainted with Christian thought, one must share it with the world in order for god’s teachings to help humanity as opposed to selfishly keep them to oneself. The problem here becomes that one is involuntarily forced to share god’s teachings that could be found in the bible which for all we know was only written by men in the same way Plato’s Republic was.
Christianity and Platonism are not, of course, all the available options in this department. But I am sure that other religions also have similar relations with Platonism. What do you practice then, the real thing otherwise known as Platonism or a spin off whatever it might be called?
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
To begin, a direct reference to the bible: St. John has the following sentence in his gospels: “In the beginning there was word and with word there was god.” That is an undeniable platonic reference.
Platonic ontology is driven by the need to find the absolute “One” which can only be reached by the reason which comes from innate ideas. In a parallel with Christianity, the “One” would be god, and the way to reach him seems to be the same, except Christianity emphasizes a different kind of reason than that to which Platonic epistemology refers to. Christianity is interested in a rather spiritual reason. However, both types of reasons are related to each other in the sense that we as human beings are born with the knowledge that, according to Platonism, there are forms and, according to Christianity, that there is a god. The highest form is the Form of the Good and is the basis for the rest. God is the basis for everything there is in Christian theology.
If Plato was the one who presented the realm of forms to humanity, then Jesus would be his equivalent since according to the gospels he came to this material world in order to teach humanity his father’s doctrine.
Plato’s Republic is one of, if not the most, influential philosophical works. In said book, Plato presents the ideal community, the ultimate rulers and the different models to rule. In the same way, the bible seems to present humanity with the idea of the perfect world through merely trying to teach how to go about building it, but refraining from showing what the finished work would look like. The Republic is a more direct guideline towards building the perfect inhabitable place. The perfect rulers are the philosophers in Plato’s word which directly relate to the priests as god’s instruments for ruling Earth.
Plato presents the metaphor of the sun. Said metaphor presents the sun as the source of “light” which in this case represents knowledge as well as the Form of the Good. This idea is sometimes interpreted to be Plato’s concept of god. The metaphor is about what the reality crucially means and how one attains the understanding of it. Likewise, god represents the essential source of light in Christianity. God is the Supreme Being the same way the Form of Good is the Supreme Form. Early Christian thought understood the forms of which Plato talks about as the thoughts of god which shows another connection.
The Allegory of the Cave is a well known passage in Plato’s Republic in which a man walks out into the sun and after experiencing light he is not longer able to live inside the cave, yet those who remained in the cave do not understand what he means when he speaks of the light. In this sense, this man has reached the light, reason, which he must share with the rest of the people with whom he was on the cave in order for those who remained to also become possessors of light. Otherwise, the one man who has found the light would become a bizarre creature to his past companions. In the same way, god’s word should be spread, the gospels claim. If one becomes acquainted with Christian thought, one must share it with the world in order for god’s teachings to help humanity as opposed to selfishly keep them to oneself. The problem here becomes that one is involuntarily forced to share god’s teachings that could be found in the bible which for all we know was only written by men in the same way Plato’s Republic was.
Christianity and Platonism are not, of course, all the available options in this department. But I am sure that other religions also have similar relations with Platonism. What do you practice then, the real thing otherwise known as Platonism or a spin off whatever it might be called?
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Self-Produced Reality
Is it possible for what we tend to call reality to be a genuine entity in which we can rely in order to justify our every day existence? It certainly seems to be so, but there is not any way to be convinced.
Reality is that which is totally determined. However, I find that not to be constantly the case. If reality was indeed totally determined, then there would not be absolutely anything worth fighting for. The end of the road would already be known and we could just sit and enjoy the ride rather than trying to change the path the train takes and doing our best to prevent if from derailing. This, however, is not the case at all. We continually engage into the very selfish practice of picking and choosing what to consider as important part of our lives, and through that, even if it is a subconscious practice, we decide what pieces form our reality. Nonetheless, we refuse to accept such fact.
So often the situations in which we find ourselves and the people we find ourselves surrounded by turn out to be such disappointments. In which cases, we simply move on. That is a performance which is otherwise known as changing our reality. Provided the world is not the perfect place to spend our existence, we must recognize that it is so only because it is a representation of our ideas. In turn, our lives are but a reflection of such ideas. But since as human beings we naturally thrive for the best, we are powerful enough to make of the world as we please even though our decisions are not always the most widely accepted.
The reason we find ourselves in situations we do not enjoy is because we put ourselves in those situations. After careful deliberation, I have decided that anything that happens to us is because we allow it to do so. There are signs that we must be cautious enough to understand in order to avoid such situations. To our dismay, however, we are incapable of recognizing such signs until the worst has passed. By which time, we assure ourselves that there is absolutely not any way in which we could have known what was coming. But too late do we realize we were wrong and we could have predicted those situations and with that absent prediction we could have escaped them.
A question that is quite bothersome: how do we wind up surrounded by the wrong people? The answer: our doing. We tend to make certain traits in us more pronounced which in turn tends to attract the wrong people towards us. Whether we find ourselves with the not so perfect friends or with the wrong object of our affection, it is always a direct result of our actions. This is due to our judgment or lack thereof. We must become acquainted with the people we surround ourselves with early in order to avoid any later problems of discomfort and the cruel realization that the people with whom we spend most of our time are far from who we thought them to be.
As it becomes obvious through these minimalist arguments, one holds the power to create the reality in which we want to exist. A great life is, of course, never guaranteed. But it is rather completely dependent on our good judgment. What goes wrong is never the situation and in the same way the people around us do not change in a split second. We, unconscious but simply choose not to be aware of those things that make situations and people mistakes before they actually become one. We must be careful to make the world the a representation of the ideas that would make it the proper place we wish to inhabit as opposed to those which are flawed and would only lead to decay.
If the situation shall present itself in which there is absolutely not a sign of future light, fear not. There is always a way out of a self perpetrated misery. Pain is undeniably inevitable. But in the cases it must appear, suffering is only optional.
Advice: Please do make sure that your reality is totally determined by you. Also, that your world is but a reflection of your own ideas. Otherwise, it is neither your reality nor your world at all. It is simply someone else’s play, the one in which you have taken a role as a delightful puppet.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Reality is that which is totally determined. However, I find that not to be constantly the case. If reality was indeed totally determined, then there would not be absolutely anything worth fighting for. The end of the road would already be known and we could just sit and enjoy the ride rather than trying to change the path the train takes and doing our best to prevent if from derailing. This, however, is not the case at all. We continually engage into the very selfish practice of picking and choosing what to consider as important part of our lives, and through that, even if it is a subconscious practice, we decide what pieces form our reality. Nonetheless, we refuse to accept such fact.
So often the situations in which we find ourselves and the people we find ourselves surrounded by turn out to be such disappointments. In which cases, we simply move on. That is a performance which is otherwise known as changing our reality. Provided the world is not the perfect place to spend our existence, we must recognize that it is so only because it is a representation of our ideas. In turn, our lives are but a reflection of such ideas. But since as human beings we naturally thrive for the best, we are powerful enough to make of the world as we please even though our decisions are not always the most widely accepted.
The reason we find ourselves in situations we do not enjoy is because we put ourselves in those situations. After careful deliberation, I have decided that anything that happens to us is because we allow it to do so. There are signs that we must be cautious enough to understand in order to avoid such situations. To our dismay, however, we are incapable of recognizing such signs until the worst has passed. By which time, we assure ourselves that there is absolutely not any way in which we could have known what was coming. But too late do we realize we were wrong and we could have predicted those situations and with that absent prediction we could have escaped them.
A question that is quite bothersome: how do we wind up surrounded by the wrong people? The answer: our doing. We tend to make certain traits in us more pronounced which in turn tends to attract the wrong people towards us. Whether we find ourselves with the not so perfect friends or with the wrong object of our affection, it is always a direct result of our actions. This is due to our judgment or lack thereof. We must become acquainted with the people we surround ourselves with early in order to avoid any later problems of discomfort and the cruel realization that the people with whom we spend most of our time are far from who we thought them to be.
As it becomes obvious through these minimalist arguments, one holds the power to create the reality in which we want to exist. A great life is, of course, never guaranteed. But it is rather completely dependent on our good judgment. What goes wrong is never the situation and in the same way the people around us do not change in a split second. We, unconscious but simply choose not to be aware of those things that make situations and people mistakes before they actually become one. We must be careful to make the world the a representation of the ideas that would make it the proper place we wish to inhabit as opposed to those which are flawed and would only lead to decay.
If the situation shall present itself in which there is absolutely not a sign of future light, fear not. There is always a way out of a self perpetrated misery. Pain is undeniably inevitable. But in the cases it must appear, suffering is only optional.
Advice: Please do make sure that your reality is totally determined by you. Also, that your world is but a reflection of your own ideas. Otherwise, it is neither your reality nor your world at all. It is simply someone else’s play, the one in which you have taken a role as a delightful puppet.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Unattainable Reality
Is happiness an attainable reality or a wild dream? Happiness is overrated. If I think about it, such conclusion becomes clear. What is happiness? How am I to know the answer to such question if I always want to be “happier”; which ultimately suggests that I am not happy from the beginning?
Happiness is not what people tell me; it is what I make of it. I’ll stop for a moment and ponder on the interrogative…
To start simple: a clear cut definition is needed, or the lack thereof. There is not a definition of happiness other than knowing that it should be our aim. Nevertheless, what is there is only an insufferable desire to reach it. Since the moment in which we are able to separate between what a smile may entail and what a tear must mean, we incline towards what seems more joyful: smiles. We see tears as entities full of sorrow. We do not, however, possess enough information and understanding to distinguish the meaning both items have.
Happiness is not a simple smile, it necessitates more. Happiness itself is relative because what can make one happy might only bring distress to another. For some it means having the latest gadget out there, or the new it fashion item, the best car –the list goes on. But happiness could also mean something as simple as a, worth the tautology, smile from the object of our affection or seeing our family. Happiness then means very different things for very different people: material or not. Happiness relies on other items to be called so; otherwise, it is another simple state of mind.
Then, there is the other theory which says that happiness is rather a contingency. It is part of the process of existing. There is not any destination to which, upon arrival one would feel fulfilled and, well, happy. In other words, the mere fact that material objects or certain people or certain immaterial states or receiving the various kinds of affection that can be displayed make us happy is but a coincidence. In short, there is not anything which can actually make us happy. We must just be happy at any given moment with any given possession or people we find ourselves with.
A dream provided that is a wild idea, is still a possible definition for happiness. When in desperation, one turns to anything in order not to find oneself lost. This would imply, unfortunately, that happiness is in fact unattainable. But that would also question the times in which we have felt happy. In those cases, if it wasn’t happiness, then what was it? Perhaps happiness is just an unattainable reality.
Finally, I present my personal attempt to define such an abstract idea. I find it very comfortable but at the same time a bit illegitimate. On the one hand, it is pleasing because it applies well to me as it is. But every person is a world, thus making it unjustifiable as a general idea.
Happiness for me is who I am. I am aware arrogance is believed to be the word. Think about it, however, and the reason will become clear. I must be happy with who I am I first in order to find this so called happiness. Otherwise, there won’t be anything or anyone to make me happy. But there is more to it. Happiness is enjoying the moment I am in because there will never be a repetition of it. Life is too short for regrets. So, one must live the moments presented to us as they come and allow them to bring happiness to our very life. Happiness must be the people around us: family, friends, perhaps even an object of our affection. In one way or another, every person with whom we share a relationship should be an ingredient that condiments our happiness not the extra element that spoils the recipe.
At the end, happiness is a roller coaster of emotions because we never really know that we are actually happy until we are not for a second, then we become aware of our previous state of happiness and thrive to return to such state. However, all we need to know is that: happiness lies within, not around.
Take a second and ponder on the subject. Perhaps happiness is after all, not such an unattainable reality rather one of those rare dreams that can actually come true in the not so distant future.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Happiness is not what people tell me; it is what I make of it. I’ll stop for a moment and ponder on the interrogative…
To start simple: a clear cut definition is needed, or the lack thereof. There is not a definition of happiness other than knowing that it should be our aim. Nevertheless, what is there is only an insufferable desire to reach it. Since the moment in which we are able to separate between what a smile may entail and what a tear must mean, we incline towards what seems more joyful: smiles. We see tears as entities full of sorrow. We do not, however, possess enough information and understanding to distinguish the meaning both items have.
Happiness is not a simple smile, it necessitates more. Happiness itself is relative because what can make one happy might only bring distress to another. For some it means having the latest gadget out there, or the new it fashion item, the best car –the list goes on. But happiness could also mean something as simple as a, worth the tautology, smile from the object of our affection or seeing our family. Happiness then means very different things for very different people: material or not. Happiness relies on other items to be called so; otherwise, it is another simple state of mind.
Then, there is the other theory which says that happiness is rather a contingency. It is part of the process of existing. There is not any destination to which, upon arrival one would feel fulfilled and, well, happy. In other words, the mere fact that material objects or certain people or certain immaterial states or receiving the various kinds of affection that can be displayed make us happy is but a coincidence. In short, there is not anything which can actually make us happy. We must just be happy at any given moment with any given possession or people we find ourselves with.
A dream provided that is a wild idea, is still a possible definition for happiness. When in desperation, one turns to anything in order not to find oneself lost. This would imply, unfortunately, that happiness is in fact unattainable. But that would also question the times in which we have felt happy. In those cases, if it wasn’t happiness, then what was it? Perhaps happiness is just an unattainable reality.
Finally, I present my personal attempt to define such an abstract idea. I find it very comfortable but at the same time a bit illegitimate. On the one hand, it is pleasing because it applies well to me as it is. But every person is a world, thus making it unjustifiable as a general idea.
Happiness for me is who I am. I am aware arrogance is believed to be the word. Think about it, however, and the reason will become clear. I must be happy with who I am I first in order to find this so called happiness. Otherwise, there won’t be anything or anyone to make me happy. But there is more to it. Happiness is enjoying the moment I am in because there will never be a repetition of it. Life is too short for regrets. So, one must live the moments presented to us as they come and allow them to bring happiness to our very life. Happiness must be the people around us: family, friends, perhaps even an object of our affection. In one way or another, every person with whom we share a relationship should be an ingredient that condiments our happiness not the extra element that spoils the recipe.
At the end, happiness is a roller coaster of emotions because we never really know that we are actually happy until we are not for a second, then we become aware of our previous state of happiness and thrive to return to such state. However, all we need to know is that: happiness lies within, not around.
Take a second and ponder on the subject. Perhaps happiness is after all, not such an unattainable reality rather one of those rare dreams that can actually come true in the not so distant future.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Enduring Death for a Better Life
Have you ever asked yourself whether this human experience to which you wake up everyday, namely life, is rather waking up to spend one more day in death?
Come to think of it, what is the talk about eternal life all about, religious perturbation, perhaps? But such talk is important as evidence for the time being. If everything awful that occurs can be justified from the eternal life perspective, then perhaps this is the short death we must pay as a price for such better prospect. We can not experience life twice or so we are told, thus it follows that one should be life and the other should be death. If the one that is to come after we depart this material existence should be better, then it must follow that the present one most definitely should be death.
Every detail seems to support this thesis. Although it is largely debatable depending on whom is presenting the topic, one has never question the idea that despite what is thought by many, there is only one chance given to each one of us. A chance to excel in the material existence, yet we are taught that there is a better alternative.
The suffering that is observed in this world everyday, as well as the suffering we are unable to examine, that which is experience under the skin, can only be justified through the expectation of a better future. Such future will not be found on this planet. If that is the case, why would it be helpful to believe that this is life when it is so awful for the masses? Only the selected few attain happiness whereas the masses must suffer from sunrise to sundown.
The lack of peace among nation-states as well as poverty and mortal diseases are among the major issues that terrorize the world on an everyday basis. Those problems seem as good reasons to believe on a better after life as any. This view, however, is the major scope through which such an important and controversial topic is analyzed. To add to this confusion, there are those other concerns that do not reach international arena. If someone dies, what is the purpose of holding the belief that they are in fact dead as opposed to think that they will live forever? If one believes their love ones to have passed to a better life, there is the hope of seeing them again and enjoying good times with them. Nevertheless, if one holds the opposite belief, namely, that the everyday existence we currently experience is life, then there is not hope for anything better. One must settle for a mediocre life in this planet that decays little by little.
Those who aim to reach happiness, yet they do not reach it must also find justification for this in an after life. If there is not anything better to hope for, then there is not any reason to endure. Yet, we endure.
Besides, the idea that this is death fits perfectly with the chronology of life as we know it. When we are born, we cry. This event automatically translates into the having enter a dreadful world, perhaps coming from a better place. Why else would we start our existence crying? Why does everyone cry when someone dies? Perhaps because they already know the better experiences that this newly ‘deceased’ person is having and which they are foregoing due to their remaining ‘alive.’ Certainly, such events do not justify the belief on an after life which will deem this one as a mere fleeting death.
There is also another argument: extinction. How was it possible for hundreds of species to disappear at a given moment without a trace? Yes, there are fossils, but those are only material leftovers of what there once was. Are we humans bound to suffer the same fate: extinction, or will there be something beyond?
There is absolutely no way for one to prove this debate either way. There are many arguments that run from simple, or rather complicated, biology to religious hopes. They are each designed to better fit the beliefs of every single being to their convenience.
Or perhaps death can be seen as simple biological stage of an organism’s existence. But in any case, tomorrow morning upon waking, hope you are still dead because you never know when you will start living, and that could be such a surprise.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Come to think of it, what is the talk about eternal life all about, religious perturbation, perhaps? But such talk is important as evidence for the time being. If everything awful that occurs can be justified from the eternal life perspective, then perhaps this is the short death we must pay as a price for such better prospect. We can not experience life twice or so we are told, thus it follows that one should be life and the other should be death. If the one that is to come after we depart this material existence should be better, then it must follow that the present one most definitely should be death.
Every detail seems to support this thesis. Although it is largely debatable depending on whom is presenting the topic, one has never question the idea that despite what is thought by many, there is only one chance given to each one of us. A chance to excel in the material existence, yet we are taught that there is a better alternative.
The suffering that is observed in this world everyday, as well as the suffering we are unable to examine, that which is experience under the skin, can only be justified through the expectation of a better future. Such future will not be found on this planet. If that is the case, why would it be helpful to believe that this is life when it is so awful for the masses? Only the selected few attain happiness whereas the masses must suffer from sunrise to sundown.
The lack of peace among nation-states as well as poverty and mortal diseases are among the major issues that terrorize the world on an everyday basis. Those problems seem as good reasons to believe on a better after life as any. This view, however, is the major scope through which such an important and controversial topic is analyzed. To add to this confusion, there are those other concerns that do not reach international arena. If someone dies, what is the purpose of holding the belief that they are in fact dead as opposed to think that they will live forever? If one believes their love ones to have passed to a better life, there is the hope of seeing them again and enjoying good times with them. Nevertheless, if one holds the opposite belief, namely, that the everyday existence we currently experience is life, then there is not hope for anything better. One must settle for a mediocre life in this planet that decays little by little.
Those who aim to reach happiness, yet they do not reach it must also find justification for this in an after life. If there is not anything better to hope for, then there is not any reason to endure. Yet, we endure.
Besides, the idea that this is death fits perfectly with the chronology of life as we know it. When we are born, we cry. This event automatically translates into the having enter a dreadful world, perhaps coming from a better place. Why else would we start our existence crying? Why does everyone cry when someone dies? Perhaps because they already know the better experiences that this newly ‘deceased’ person is having and which they are foregoing due to their remaining ‘alive.’ Certainly, such events do not justify the belief on an after life which will deem this one as a mere fleeting death.
There is also another argument: extinction. How was it possible for hundreds of species to disappear at a given moment without a trace? Yes, there are fossils, but those are only material leftovers of what there once was. Are we humans bound to suffer the same fate: extinction, or will there be something beyond?
There is absolutely no way for one to prove this debate either way. There are many arguments that run from simple, or rather complicated, biology to religious hopes. They are each designed to better fit the beliefs of every single being to their convenience.
Or perhaps death can be seen as simple biological stage of an organism’s existence. But in any case, tomorrow morning upon waking, hope you are still dead because you never know when you will start living, and that could be such a surprise.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
A Distinct Approach to Profit Making
What if a hospital was a simply a very complicated version of a corporation that focuses on maximizing profits since they are both run in a parallel manner?
The corporation is owned by shareholders whereas a hospital is owned by a private company (which could be shareholders for all we know) or by the government. In either case, however, the Board of Directors is the governing body of the institution in question and is headed by the chairman, who might or might not be the CEO. In the corporation the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is in charge of setting policy and coordinates the day to day operations of the company with the policy set by the Board of Directors. The equivalent in a hospital is known as the Chief Medical Officer (chief of surgery). The CMO is also in charge of implementing policy set by the Board of Directors which he does not necessarily chair. He also supervises all surgeries. The Chief Operating Officer in a corporation is known as the President and his role consists of managing the day-to-day affairs of the company. In a hospital this person is the Chief Resident who is in charge of overlooking the residents to make sure that they are doing their job to the best of their abilities. In a company there are Executive Vice-presidents who report to the President on the state of every part of the company. They function as the president of each division of the company by which way they run the company by divisions. In turn, in a hospital there are also different departments of medicine which are run by a doctor, who is known as the Heads of such type of medicine in which s/he specializes. There is a leader of neurosurgery, plastic surgery, cardiothoracic, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, among others. They also have to report to the Chief Resident about their deeds. The Head Nurse also falls into this category.
In the hospital the Fellows are those who are specializing on a certain type of medicine. This functions as a regular job to which they must apply first. Vice-presidents in a company run each further subdivision of each department in a company. They have to report to the Executive Vice-president on the state of the department of which they are in charge such as finance, marketing, accounting, information services, public relations, corporate affairs, law, and the various other operating divisions.
Residents in a hospital are the doctors who practice medicine there. They have already received their credentials. However, for the time being they can only practice general medicine. Usually they attach themselves to the Head of whatever type of medicine they are planning to specialize on. They must also have interns and interact more closely with the medical students. In a company the general managers must make sure that everything in a department is running according to plan in order for the vice-president to be able to run things smoothly. They have a big responsibility because they are the biggest connection between workers and the management.
The managers are those who technically help the general manager make sure everything is running smoothly on an everyday basis in order to ensure perfection. The interns in the hospital are those who have already graduated from medical school, however, are not yet accredited to practice medicine on their own. They help the residents as a manager does: great responsibility with little power. They thus must remain under the hand of a resident until they have passed their accreditation exam.
Supervisors and nurses also have a big responsibility, but their work is overshadowed by the manager and resident, respectively.
Workers and medical students: both are there one day, but they might not be there the next. Anything can happen. In this way, the corporation is a parallel to the hospital. Every step of the way is managed in a similar way. In addition, both have a legal department; which is there to defend them in case anything does not turn out as it was meant to be. They also share many other traits such as the pyramidal payment distribution.
Finally, there are the patients and the product, respectively. One makes profits through sales. The other assures the hospital income by remaining sick.
Next time you visit a hospital, whatever the reason, think about this parallel because you might become a tool for profiting.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
The corporation is owned by shareholders whereas a hospital is owned by a private company (which could be shareholders for all we know) or by the government. In either case, however, the Board of Directors is the governing body of the institution in question and is headed by the chairman, who might or might not be the CEO. In the corporation the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is in charge of setting policy and coordinates the day to day operations of the company with the policy set by the Board of Directors. The equivalent in a hospital is known as the Chief Medical Officer (chief of surgery). The CMO is also in charge of implementing policy set by the Board of Directors which he does not necessarily chair. He also supervises all surgeries. The Chief Operating Officer in a corporation is known as the President and his role consists of managing the day-to-day affairs of the company. In a hospital this person is the Chief Resident who is in charge of overlooking the residents to make sure that they are doing their job to the best of their abilities. In a company there are Executive Vice-presidents who report to the President on the state of every part of the company. They function as the president of each division of the company by which way they run the company by divisions. In turn, in a hospital there are also different departments of medicine which are run by a doctor, who is known as the Heads of such type of medicine in which s/he specializes. There is a leader of neurosurgery, plastic surgery, cardiothoracic, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, among others. They also have to report to the Chief Resident about their deeds. The Head Nurse also falls into this category.
In the hospital the Fellows are those who are specializing on a certain type of medicine. This functions as a regular job to which they must apply first. Vice-presidents in a company run each further subdivision of each department in a company. They have to report to the Executive Vice-president on the state of the department of which they are in charge such as finance, marketing, accounting, information services, public relations, corporate affairs, law, and the various other operating divisions.
Residents in a hospital are the doctors who practice medicine there. They have already received their credentials. However, for the time being they can only practice general medicine. Usually they attach themselves to the Head of whatever type of medicine they are planning to specialize on. They must also have interns and interact more closely with the medical students. In a company the general managers must make sure that everything in a department is running according to plan in order for the vice-president to be able to run things smoothly. They have a big responsibility because they are the biggest connection between workers and the management.
The managers are those who technically help the general manager make sure everything is running smoothly on an everyday basis in order to ensure perfection. The interns in the hospital are those who have already graduated from medical school, however, are not yet accredited to practice medicine on their own. They help the residents as a manager does: great responsibility with little power. They thus must remain under the hand of a resident until they have passed their accreditation exam.
Supervisors and nurses also have a big responsibility, but their work is overshadowed by the manager and resident, respectively.
Workers and medical students: both are there one day, but they might not be there the next. Anything can happen. In this way, the corporation is a parallel to the hospital. Every step of the way is managed in a similar way. In addition, both have a legal department; which is there to defend them in case anything does not turn out as it was meant to be. They also share many other traits such as the pyramidal payment distribution.
Finally, there are the patients and the product, respectively. One makes profits through sales. The other assures the hospital income by remaining sick.
Next time you visit a hospital, whatever the reason, think about this parallel because you might become a tool for profiting.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Theory of Relativity (of Truth)
What would happen to the world if truth as it is understood today became recognized by the masses as a relative concept which would make certain things, values, beliefs and ideas truth and false at the same time?
The truth is already a very complicated concept as applied to the world and even the mind. We tend to forget things and at the moment they are not longer truth in our reality. Nevertheless, the forgotten are still truth because they correspond to some fact from the past. Alfred Tarski famously presented the problem that the idea itself of defining truth independent of anything is a problematic notion.
It is, in fact, difficult to define truth as an independent factor. One must always seek aid in material or immaterial examples. Four theories of truth exist. The minimalist theory simple states that true is redundant and does not add anything to a statement. The other three seem to be different components of one theory.
First, there is the pragmatic theory of truth which establishes that in order for something to be truth, that something must be useful. This seems to raise the question of ‘for whom must it be useful?’ Here is the first point of relativity. If in order for anything to be truth, this must be useful, one might ask what about the beliefs that are useful for some people to hold yet for others are a complete waste of time. Does this mean such beliefs are both true and false? Certainly not, I hope. This means that truth is relative to whoever holds a belief.
The coherence theory of truth dictates that true beliefs and propositions are those which correspond to the rest of the beliefs we hold. This simply cannot apply to life as we know it. It is absurd to think that one cannot hold any beliefs if these do not correspond to the other beliefs one already has. In the end, however, this applies to the theory I am advocating: relativity. In order to hold a certain belief as true at a precise moment in time one only needs to disregard the beliefs that do not cohere with it at that instant. Thus, that one belief would be truth relative to the point in time in which it is held as well as relative to what beliefs does it correspond to. While it is possible to hold beliefs that do not make sense together and which can be held as true at different times, it is not possible for different people to hold the same belief and have it be both true and false, which is what this theory seems to imply. A belief that is both true and false is, however, also possible under different circumstances.
Finally, the most widely accepted theory of truth: correspondence. This theory states that truth is that which as expressed corresponds to a fact in the world. To complicate matters, through this theory truth can be not only applied to beliefs and immaterial entities, but also to physical objects. Truth, then, becomes relative to reality whether this reality is an object or a belief. Although this theory seems very strong, there are also problems with it. Propositions and beliefs can correspond to facts in the world, but there are also those sorts of beliefs held by millions which do not conform in any sense to a fact, such beliefs are not accounted for in this theory as well as objects that after having been long disappeared are recovered.
The way I see it, truth as expressed in these three theories is a relative concept. It is relative to its utility in the first place. Meaning it should be useful otherwise we would be allowed to lie, which is also useful, but nonetheless causes problems when the ‘truth’ is discovered. Truth should also correspond to other beliefs, at least at the moment at which a belief is considered. Else it would not make sense to compare a butterfly to a flower based on the fact that someone beliefs them to be both beautiful. Finally, truth should also be relative to the fact in the world to which it corresponds. One cannot say, for example, that the table has legs and that an animal also has legs and consider both to be truth without understanding truth is relative.
Next time someone preaches you the truth, make sure it is relative to what you consider to be so.
xoxo,
Posion Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
The truth is already a very complicated concept as applied to the world and even the mind. We tend to forget things and at the moment they are not longer truth in our reality. Nevertheless, the forgotten are still truth because they correspond to some fact from the past. Alfred Tarski famously presented the problem that the idea itself of defining truth independent of anything is a problematic notion.
It is, in fact, difficult to define truth as an independent factor. One must always seek aid in material or immaterial examples. Four theories of truth exist. The minimalist theory simple states that true is redundant and does not add anything to a statement. The other three seem to be different components of one theory.
First, there is the pragmatic theory of truth which establishes that in order for something to be truth, that something must be useful. This seems to raise the question of ‘for whom must it be useful?’ Here is the first point of relativity. If in order for anything to be truth, this must be useful, one might ask what about the beliefs that are useful for some people to hold yet for others are a complete waste of time. Does this mean such beliefs are both true and false? Certainly not, I hope. This means that truth is relative to whoever holds a belief.
The coherence theory of truth dictates that true beliefs and propositions are those which correspond to the rest of the beliefs we hold. This simply cannot apply to life as we know it. It is absurd to think that one cannot hold any beliefs if these do not correspond to the other beliefs one already has. In the end, however, this applies to the theory I am advocating: relativity. In order to hold a certain belief as true at a precise moment in time one only needs to disregard the beliefs that do not cohere with it at that instant. Thus, that one belief would be truth relative to the point in time in which it is held as well as relative to what beliefs does it correspond to. While it is possible to hold beliefs that do not make sense together and which can be held as true at different times, it is not possible for different people to hold the same belief and have it be both true and false, which is what this theory seems to imply. A belief that is both true and false is, however, also possible under different circumstances.
Finally, the most widely accepted theory of truth: correspondence. This theory states that truth is that which as expressed corresponds to a fact in the world. To complicate matters, through this theory truth can be not only applied to beliefs and immaterial entities, but also to physical objects. Truth, then, becomes relative to reality whether this reality is an object or a belief. Although this theory seems very strong, there are also problems with it. Propositions and beliefs can correspond to facts in the world, but there are also those sorts of beliefs held by millions which do not conform in any sense to a fact, such beliefs are not accounted for in this theory as well as objects that after having been long disappeared are recovered.
The way I see it, truth as expressed in these three theories is a relative concept. It is relative to its utility in the first place. Meaning it should be useful otherwise we would be allowed to lie, which is also useful, but nonetheless causes problems when the ‘truth’ is discovered. Truth should also correspond to other beliefs, at least at the moment at which a belief is considered. Else it would not make sense to compare a butterfly to a flower based on the fact that someone beliefs them to be both beautiful. Finally, truth should also be relative to the fact in the world to which it corresponds. One cannot say, for example, that the table has legs and that an animal also has legs and consider both to be truth without understanding truth is relative.
Next time someone preaches you the truth, make sure it is relative to what you consider to be so.
xoxo,
Posion Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
A Tyranny behind Closed Doors
What if my family was not a common family but a political system secretly set up by my parents? The evidence suggests it is in fact a very unstable tyranny.
Demands are abundant from my sisters and I, but there are rarely any outputs from my parents due to the active gatekeepers, namely time, and space for demands to be heard, which also prevent the members of the collectivity from giving feedback, thus averting support. The environment is hostile when support is needed but feedback is not processed by my parents. Power is understood as a rational-legal system, yet there is a traditional system behind it which is the wheels of the system. However, there have been transitions that have taken the political system through charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority. The latter being only a mask to hide the traditional form of authority that has always been in charge after the charismatic authority was dismissed. At the beginning, when the society was forming, pure charismatic authority made the system work. As a young child, I saw my parents as divine beings that I was to respect and obey. Their power to rule over me was legitimate and I could not see the system for what it was, an ever changing, display of favoritism, and politically traditionalist. Ever changing because until the present day the office holders act according to what is best for them without thinking about the collectivity when it comes to allocating scare resources such as cars, cellular phones, and freedom. They are helping the collectivity, however, when it comes to needed resources that are not so much scarce such as food, housing, and clothing. The system is also a private display of favoritism because the members of the collectivity, in particular the one that has been around for the longest time, realizes that some members are regarded as better than others in the office holders’ eyes even when this is not necessarily truth to the general public. Finally, the system is traditionalist due to the ways my parents were taught the system should work without knowing any better. There is also the fact that the members of the collectivity have allowed the office holders to do as they please for so many years.
Force, material and psychological rewards as well as legitimacy have all been used. The latter of which has disappear completely through time due to the aging process and intellectual growth of the collectivity. The system continues to utilize the other two as a mixed source of power. Force is used when the environment becomes highly hostile making the collectivity only a tool for achieving. In the past, the psychological rewards were prevalent since the collectivity was always looking for approval and affection from the office holders. However, as the collectivity has grown older, it focuses on receiving material rewards. For example, when showing grades to the office holders instead of looking for a smile and a hug as approval, a member of the collectivity seeks to acquire new shoes, clothes or simply money to be used at her pleasure.
If the members of the collectivity comply, the allocation of scarce resources benefits them. If, on the other hand, the members of the collectivity do not comply, the only beneficiaries are the office holders. Compliance has always being a problem due to instability. First, office holders took advantage of their position by using normative authority. When the collectivity was young there was legitimacy and normative compliance; it was reliable, stable and efficient. Later, the office holders employed a mixture of coercive and utilitarian compliance still in use today because it inclines the system to benefit both office holders and the collectivity, at different times. The members of the collectivity have an extensive use of free “riderism”; that is they manage to benefit without complying. However, the office holders lean towards using coercive compliance which is costly and only useful when the office holders or their enforcement officers are present. Alienation is also present since the members of the collectivity have detached themselves from the office holders though they remain attached through a powerful traditionalist bond and fear of being expelled from society.
The system will continue to be unstable and oppressive until the members of the collective are old enough to liberate themselves from the rule of the office holders.
Next time you see your family, make sure it is a representative government which is said to be ideal.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Demands are abundant from my sisters and I, but there are rarely any outputs from my parents due to the active gatekeepers, namely time, and space for demands to be heard, which also prevent the members of the collectivity from giving feedback, thus averting support. The environment is hostile when support is needed but feedback is not processed by my parents. Power is understood as a rational-legal system, yet there is a traditional system behind it which is the wheels of the system. However, there have been transitions that have taken the political system through charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority. The latter being only a mask to hide the traditional form of authority that has always been in charge after the charismatic authority was dismissed. At the beginning, when the society was forming, pure charismatic authority made the system work. As a young child, I saw my parents as divine beings that I was to respect and obey. Their power to rule over me was legitimate and I could not see the system for what it was, an ever changing, display of favoritism, and politically traditionalist. Ever changing because until the present day the office holders act according to what is best for them without thinking about the collectivity when it comes to allocating scare resources such as cars, cellular phones, and freedom. They are helping the collectivity, however, when it comes to needed resources that are not so much scarce such as food, housing, and clothing. The system is also a private display of favoritism because the members of the collectivity, in particular the one that has been around for the longest time, realizes that some members are regarded as better than others in the office holders’ eyes even when this is not necessarily truth to the general public. Finally, the system is traditionalist due to the ways my parents were taught the system should work without knowing any better. There is also the fact that the members of the collectivity have allowed the office holders to do as they please for so many years.
Force, material and psychological rewards as well as legitimacy have all been used. The latter of which has disappear completely through time due to the aging process and intellectual growth of the collectivity. The system continues to utilize the other two as a mixed source of power. Force is used when the environment becomes highly hostile making the collectivity only a tool for achieving. In the past, the psychological rewards were prevalent since the collectivity was always looking for approval and affection from the office holders. However, as the collectivity has grown older, it focuses on receiving material rewards. For example, when showing grades to the office holders instead of looking for a smile and a hug as approval, a member of the collectivity seeks to acquire new shoes, clothes or simply money to be used at her pleasure.
If the members of the collectivity comply, the allocation of scarce resources benefits them. If, on the other hand, the members of the collectivity do not comply, the only beneficiaries are the office holders. Compliance has always being a problem due to instability. First, office holders took advantage of their position by using normative authority. When the collectivity was young there was legitimacy and normative compliance; it was reliable, stable and efficient. Later, the office holders employed a mixture of coercive and utilitarian compliance still in use today because it inclines the system to benefit both office holders and the collectivity, at different times. The members of the collectivity have an extensive use of free “riderism”; that is they manage to benefit without complying. However, the office holders lean towards using coercive compliance which is costly and only useful when the office holders or their enforcement officers are present. Alienation is also present since the members of the collectivity have detached themselves from the office holders though they remain attached through a powerful traditionalist bond and fear of being expelled from society.
The system will continue to be unstable and oppressive until the members of the collective are old enough to liberate themselves from the rule of the office holders.
Next time you see your family, make sure it is a representative government which is said to be ideal.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
