Its hard to explain...

 The ontology of living is a contiunum from a state of nothingness to a certian state of being. Its dynamic, and holds as much objective value as per the subjective perception of the individual. It is from the infinite state of being that sentience can manifest, and it is from the fullness of sentience the feedback of human philosophy and natural philosophy can occur.

The ontology of living in itself is a psychological and physiological system, with each of its domains (in psychology and physiology) integrating together to build up the qualia of life. While this integration itself is complete in unifying the being, this process carries on beyond the individual to the community. This state of union is completely metaphysical, since it transcends the physical parameters of time and space to only 'affect' subjects with a certain state of being. The feedback from this interpersonal ontology and the ontology of living cycles beyond the initial creation of the individual, and in turn reinforces the individual and the community.

One of the imperative questions of address is the nature of that metaphysical state of being. Little explanation can be conferred for it, but its paradoxical since it is from this that sapience itself may manifest. Theists draw reason to the the metaphysical soul, and alludes that the nature of being ultimately derives from the infinity of God Himself.

It is evident that the ontology of living, the ontology of love, and the natural state of being itself is similar nature, though different forms may persist in different dimensions. This state of being, should it be traced, can be linked back to a single fundamental concept (though inexpressible by definition). It is in this concept the three transcendentals come together to qualify; and it is in this respect we attempt to make that final reconcilation between the our universe, and the universe we live in.




 

Part 2

Another little white bunny was hopping away when it bumped into the (same) tiger.

"You can't eat me" Said the little white bunny.

"Why can't I eat you?" asked the tiger, suprised.

"Because I said so, and what I say is truth." said the little bunny. "Truth-is-subjective-and-whats-true-for-me-is-what-I-deem-as-truth-and-I-don't-believe-that-you-are-justified-to-eat-me-and-so-there!"

The tiger got confused and still ate up the little bunny. The little white bunny then went to bunny hell.

The reason? Did not follow the divine plan.

A story

A little bunny was hopping away when it bumped into a tiger.

Said the little white bunny to the tiger: "Eat me."

"Why must I eat you?" asked the tiger, suprised.

The bunny replied: "Ain't all bunnies supposed to be eaten so that you tigers may live? If you don't eat me, I would not fufil my part of the divine plan. I wouldn't be able to go to bunny heaven then."

So the tiger ate the bunny, and the little bunny went to bunny hell-

The reason? Suicide.

Goodness Theory

Today I lost my laptop for three hours.

Those three hours were a complete nightmare, and best of all I had to spend two out of three in an examination hall with an English paper in front of me. I had to preoccupy myself throughout thinking about the passage at hand, and looking on word after word. There was this lethargy to complete the entire paper, I was tempted to just write my name, stand up, and leave the hall.

But I guess I did the paper just fine. Perhaps its my innate ability to just shut down parts of my mind and live in a parallel world of idealistic denial while transversing this reality. I think I have stated before having a sort of metaphysical impression of this world. Today I would be adruptly pulled back to reality, and today I would see a final convergence between the real and the ideal. That would come three hours later, when a kind soul did return my laptop to the lost and found.

Before that, I would of course have to thank the many people I had contacted, and helped me during those three hours of madness. Now, to the deranged after-action-review.

What is human goodness? Human goodness is not an ideal. Yes, goodness is an ideal, and many of us may have the misconception that it is some sort of perfect goal to be achieved just as how we attempt to achieve success and fame. But this is where even philosophy begins to fail- true goodness is not a mental construct, it is not something we ought to have if we were to join the club of 'untaintedness' and 'innocence'; similarily, it would be equally erronous to assume that the lack of this idealistic goodness would naturally lead to a corrupted life of decadence, failure, and utter waste. Such a view would be a very dualistic view- no more better than the primitive view that heaven takes only the holy people and hell takes the rest. We know that such a view in itself is erronous- and I don't want to dwell into excessive christian doctrine to justify the policy changes of Vatican 2 as well as the reason of Jesus' affliation with sinners. I try not to dwell too deeply into theology here today, but personally, we can definitely see a convergence at this very point.

Actually, we have to understand that goodness is independent of ideal constructs. Goodness itself is an objective, a purpose, a meaning, and an agenda. When we show an act of kindess and concern, it is actually goodness that is the ultimate goal, rather than what we call 'mutual benefit' or 'because catechism tells me so'. Of course we can take one step back and return all meaning of creation back to 'God's infinite love", but as far as I could think of today in the lost and found, and as far as this discussion would go today- we will retrospect this thread in the future and leave matters as it is today.

Human nature is an infinitely curious subject, and human goodness- as part of human nature is something that we can never truly grasp (no matter how much we claim we can). The quote: "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" brings a very conscise restatement to our real and idealistic domains- and the parable of "the two sons and the field" brings about a very sharp conclusion on whether 'real' goodness (in a form of actions) and 'ideal' goodness (in the form of lip service and ideas) takes presidence in light of truth. As we know, humans are exceedingly contridictory- falling over and over into the traps of procrastination as they pledge themselves towards that idealistic better that can never be realized. It is precisely this erronous view of goodness why humans can never be perfect. We are too busy trying to be good we neglect what it is to be truly good.

So? We may be weak, and we may not see the objective good of it all- on first glance some people may seem un-contestable in the domain of holiness, while others we consider unworthily fu*ked-up. But while it is subjective to view the world based on one's standards, it is objective fact that the goodness in a person is proportional to the amount of meaning he sees in goodness. As noted by Jesus, a person may be bad, but even a bad person would not give a scorpion to his son if he asks for a loaf of bread, if we are to integrate this two theories together, we can see that this is because even the 'bad' individual sees meaning of his son, and it is from this meaning he is at least 'good' to his son. This calls for an in depth discussion on the theory of dimensions (a new theory), but such discussions would not be necessarily. as far as we are concerned, the lack of goodness can be alluded to a form of metaphysical ignorance- and therein we go back to the concept of idealistic goodness (be careful), objectivity;/subjectivity, and truth.

While we blunder (by our wrong approach to goodness) on our quest to be that better person, every individual that is travelling along the same direction (of metaphysical expansion and greater-meaning acquisition) cannot be condemned. Ideals may clash between individuals as we have very different concerns to what is good for me, for you, and for us; but as long as that orientation of being (to be better in one's personal domain) exists (no matter whether we may see it or not), then it is objective that that person is on the way to goodness, and what remains subjective would be no more than human judgement. As concisely summarized by the words- 'Do not judge your neighbour.'

An personal subjective orientation of expansion (this is objective), a state of being (the real), and a being that all meaning and purpose converges to (the ideal); rather than a goal to be attained and mantained (if so, what is the meaning of that goal then??). That would be roughly the concept of goodness, as well as the methods of achieving goodness. I do not deny that these concepts are indeed a tough nut to chew, and many of us may not agree to this on the first review. This would probably be the reason why we fail at our attempts to be good today, and why- until our personal 'horizons' are fully expanded to accomodate ourselves and our neighbour simultaneously, we would be treading on each other's toes- as how we have been.





 

Composition

Was looking at a couple of comics today (in my free time). Appreciated some of the drawings, and the intrinsic storyline, then the question pops again:

Why do we compose?

This is where the english language may fail- I really do mean 'compose' in its full essence, rather than the conventional definitions of 'putting things together' or 'keeping calm'. Compose in this context would generally mean any arbitrary effort on our effort to 'recreate' a part of the existence that we live in. In other words, any form of artistic, scientific, or ethical composition that in essence mimicks our reality would fall under the strictest definition of 'compose'. Conventional  compositions i.e. drawings, pictures, music would fall under the catagory of art; MO theory, TOEs, and engineering would fall as scientific re-creations; and the act of kindness- as the fundamental representation of the goodness that we are swimming in.

Enough definitions. Why is it innate in us to wish to re-produce pieces of ourselves in our idealistic domains? We can evidently see that all these forms of re-representations are fundamentally idealistic- sparked by inspiration, sustained by passion, and subsequently realized with skill and empirical methods. Somehow, it is quite interesting to say that it's because the human psyche wishes to partake in the essence of creation. If we go along this lines and factor in the assumption of Transcendental Theory, we can conclude that the human spirit will not rest until all Truth, Beauty and Goodness is broken down (not beauty though), understood, re-created, and mastered to perfection.

Truth in the from of knowledge, Beauty in the form of artistic exquisiteness, and Goodness in form of love.

Such a notion should be fundamentally right- the Christian doctrine goes along the lines that we are 'stewards of the earth', and having mastery over the forces of nature, proceed on to partake in God's plan of creation. While we cannot assume that all forms of creation definitely is part of that divine plan, we can safely assume that any notion to recreate would be going along the same lines of the 'desire to create' as advocated by creation theory. If we were to be less metaphysical and go along with empirical theories, we immediately see a correspondence with the fact that "the system of life is a move against the the law of thermodynamics, to bring development and order within this world if increasing disorder and entropy." Naturally, humans are the most complex  forms of living things, and we must factor in that our idealistic psyches are partially influenced by our biological tendencies (which allign to construction). Definitely we can prove either way that we are created for creation, and construction.

Lets not dwell too much into the abstract. Instead as we look at the next storybook we pick on the way out of the library, the next manga that we read online (look at the pictures, and go along with the story), the next movie watched in Cathay, we can see that these forms of literature (under the faculty of art) is a from of human recreation of the world that we live in. Of course, this does not merely restrict to contemporary realism- science fiction, magic, fantasy, and other 'out-of-this-world' genres are also byproducts of human reconceptualizations of this world. In short, as long as there is a trait of humanity, or naturalism residing within that creation, such a work is essentially a work of creation and representation.

Now, a certain contradiction arises from the above assertion. If we are digging through lesser 'contemporary-realistic' works of creation looking for recreation of this reality we live in; it would assume that no creation is essentially perfect unless the creation itself has a one-to-one correspondence with reality itself. We intuitively know that such a view is quite warped, and I definitely do not want to impress this idea today. So how do we explain this?

Another coining factor to our works of creation is actually intellectual escapism. While we incoperate pieces of reality into our works (of literature), there is always a complimentary level of escapism, abstracity, and re-representation that we want to factor in. On face value, this complimentary value corresponds to 'thinking-out-of-the-box', 'creativity', 'style' and 'personality', and from there we arrive back to identity theory. The reason of escapism is actually a form of identity affirmation, for it defines the individual to the level of 'abstracity' the individual escapes to- from the common shared reality of objectivity, to a subsequent subjective idealism that resides in our intellectual domains.  

Of course to that, moderation has to be employed judiciously. Over escapism leads to a life of denial, and escapism for the sake of escapism would do injustice to the roles we are supposed to be enacting in this objective world.

Naturally, Beauty theory holds that averageness brings together individuals into a common 'metaphysical being' that denotes the true (vector?) direction of progress. Scientific studies have shown that superimposed human faces actually average themselves to a much more pretty face than the individual faces themselves. And if we are to go on with art, we see that harmony is the key idea fundamental to all things beautiful. If we are to return back to our intellectual creations as a form of art, we can start wondering what happens if we average and map every form of individual creation into one big piece of creation itself.

I do not mean physical average- words don't superimpose themselves to form new words. And colors overlap only to a color of mud and chaos. This average has to be conceptual, metaphysical, essential, and ideal. A good way of visualization would be to tag along a author's comment to the piece of art and attempt to impose these comments conceptually.

Such averaging would cancel out contradictory extremes, and highlight certain points.

And the outcome, paradoxically, would actually converge to become reality itself. Complimentary to how our individual personalities average to objectivity.

Such an outcome definitely brings a very new definition to the concept of beauty- if beauty in truth is averageness, then why do we look at average films and consider them mediocre?

This would entail the concept of schemas- among art, portraits are admired for realism, on the other hand films are admired for a certain level of exxageration and abstracticity. Recall the human desire for escapism as well as realism, and we return to the moderation doctrine again- that the objective identity is not a static, 'smack-certer' steady-state balance of idealistic and realistic domains. Rather, its a dynamic fluctuation of (the 4) components that moderates itself to objectivity, correspondent of the reality we live in.

This is the essence of composition, and our desire for ccomposition. In short- an appreciation/
acknowledgement  of ourselves in this world, as well as a form of personal creation.

Very much like how we are supposed to live our lives.

Damn, I hate reasoning in circles. LOL

A retreat

I guess some of us would have already know by now- I would not be spending my 21st in Singapore.

I do not take this as an opportunity to brag- Indeed, I am going to spend christmas in Tokyo this year, but the primary reason for this move was actually more as a form of personal 'retreat' and 'recollection'. I would be attempting to tie up a couple of loose strings over the few days, and hopefully return with some answers.

I do not know whether it is would be wise to harp on such issues. I have currently attenuated all efforts into this domain of enquiry, partially out of the more pressing issue of examinations, and partially because I do not wish to end up falling 'into the trap of imbalance by harping too much on the ideals of balance'. I truly appreciate the life that I am currently leading, and I am equally pragmatic on the 'real' aspects of my individuality.

But as I have iterated, I will not give up one lifestyle over the other. As much as this life of tangible domains belongs to me, I see no reason why should I hide my concerns and developments in the idealistic domain. They are not taboo, and they are neither to be excessively glorified. Rather, they are all part of me- that one integrated unified me.

I also understand that from here on I would not be attempting to push ideals unto others. I have grew to appreciate the fact that my mentors have cautioned me to- that such ideals might be dangerous. They are dangerous not because they may be wrong; rather it is because these ideals are a 'double edged sword'. It would bring greater improvement and affirmation to the like minded, the good and the righteous, but to the half-hearted and the self-deluded such words would only come in a form of liabilities, doctrines and imposition. The intended outcome of freedom these ideals allude would then be reversed, bringing greater harm than good at the end of the day.

Whats there to be done? Just like the words of Jesus: "Listen, all who have ears".

So then, I will be pushing onwards onto a personal development that hopefully transmutes me to be a better person than yesterday. Integrating not only ideals, but also actions into a being that hopefully lives up to the way how life was meant to be. I will continue to update this space frequently with more deranged posts, with the same caution that it may contain ideas that may be uncomfortable to some. A nice break from the monotony of exams and politics, and from seeking affirmations.   

All the best to the exams, and do look forward to christmas! 

The first and final Moderation

I was thinking again, don't blame me, during one of those really boring lectures at school. I had been pondering at this issue for quite a long time already, and somehow the same questions seem to keep popping up intermittenly.

Yes, I do not deny that I seem to have reached some sort of stand-off between the over-hyped 'theory of life' and my personal capabilities of living. Today, the campaign for the lving best is completed in theory. And from the first notion that there ought to be a darn way to live this life of madness I got all the way (around?) to 'the pinnicle of philosophy-theology' aka transcendental theory. From what I see now there seems nowhere further to go, so I guess any further sort of development in the deranged world would just be expounding and refining these concepts to an infinity. BUT... just as the university that i come from, I am just a bagful of ideas.

Really deranged ideas- 

Yes, its pretty cool seeing the world as it truly is, (it kinda gives you the 'Neo-vision' in the Matrix, when he sees the illusion as it really is), its pretty cool walking around looking at ethical and political issues and thinking "ha! Thats so simple.... whats the big fuss?", and its really empowering to know that you are living just as the way you were meant to be. But somehow these ideas cannot connect when it comes to practical application. It would if there were like minded people (not philo-deranged I mean, but even normal people who have good thoughts and a kind heart), but what only seems to be entertaining me are just exams and more unsolvable tutorials. And of course, that idealistic bell-curve to keep me running.

How is it possible to juggle between these two domains and yet remain my integrity? The moderation doctrine has a lot of nonsense to say about juggling materialism and idealism, and Identity theory would have screamed 'help your neighbours through this hard times'. Goodness theory will state that the purpose of studying is for the benefit of humanity, and Transcendental theory will just mum the same three words that would quell any further arising doubts. But much as that, beauty theory postulates that no amount of words can convict the soul. Words don't summate to create the being, its the being that words are created from..

So in a way we come back to point 1: Theory is pretty useless as a from of persuation of the individual. Some real life action has to come in to change my current disposition, and opinion. Then we come back to an even older conclusion I made 11 months ago. Project RN (thought) must come hand in hand with Project RN (feeling).

I have not found a definite method to solve such issues yet. This final bridge between the deranged world, and the real world itself, would be one of the hardest aespects- paradoxically, it was on this very aespect I had created the entire faculty of the Deranged Series upon. I do not say that what I had strived to accomplish is no more than a futility, and neither do I glorify it as the 'tested and proven' method for living. While I attempt to convince myself be be what is already me, of course- I would be looking forward to christmas, and hopefully, sushi.