Understanding the Fear of Control [Article]

One of the problems of this world is that it is so focused upon the search of fulfilment that we find ourselves in the conflict with the flow of the world's direction.

It has often been said that 'Nature is blind' and I am an advocate of such a view. Nature shows no path in her continued determination. She follows a path which she sets.

For most people, life is quite the opposite of Nature's intention. We all decide that we require targets, goals and aims. There is no greater satisfaction than the knowledge that we are 'in control'.

There is one problem.

How 'in control' are we?

Nature often throws obstacles in the path. We cannot expect those obstacles. These are random occurrences. Much of our life is a random occurrence.

Natural disasters.

Financial problems.

Death.

Can we predict these events? Can we expect these events?

No.

We cannot expect to suffer a natural disaster. We cannot predict that we will struggle one month and have a fruitful one the next. Life is not quite so simple as we hope to make it.

Death is one of our greatest fears.

It is because we cannot control it that we fear.

We do not fear what we can control.

Understanding Time and Life [Article]

One of the problems with the concept of life is that it is so broad. What is life to another person is nothing more than an idea. People often attempt to define life according to particular frames. Imagine that a foetus were defined as being life according to the parameters of time. It is a logical solution, providing that time is linear. What if time is relative? The development of a child is defined according to personal characteristics, not time.

We must define our concepts according to characteristics, not the parameters of time. Planets should be defined according to their features, not according to a pre-determined set of regulations which it must meet. The world is defined according to predestination. It is expected that we will meet particular stages in life; birth, adolescence, adulthood, etc. The list continues. What happens, however, when the pre-determined features of life are shed in a different light?

Imagine that a child has the mind of an adult, a child genius. Imagine that a child understands concepts that no adult has done understood. Is the child still defined as a child? What happens if the child then decides to achieve a Bsc? What happens when the child succeeds the adult in tasks which determine the stage between childhood and adulthood? Imagine that a child then decides to take a job, to have a car, to have a house.

Is it wrong that we continue to define the child according to the parameters of time? Time is too restricting. It limits the possibilities. The world should, instead, be defined according to preconceived ideas. For example, a child should be seen as an adult when one acts in such a manner as to be appreciated and understood as an adult.

Maturity is a concept, a misunderstood concept.

The fact that such a concept exists provides us with the chance to change the world. We have the change to determine our lives according to our own parameters. We should not be bound to the definitions of time. We should be bound only by our own limitations. Our life should not be a challenge against time. It should be a challenge against limits. We should continue to fight against the improbable, against the impossible.

This is life. Define it.

Therapies of the Human Mind [Article]

There were times when I once considered writing as a great therapeutic aid. I once considered writing a safe haven which would protect me from the troubles of the world. I was creating a world which was perfect (for me) even if it was flawed. I had no image of perfection and therefore I created an imperfect world. It helped me. It gave me the chance to explore feelings, desires and questions. When I was in despair, I found that the power of poetry and its flowing rhythm would calm my senses and wash me of my pain. When I was enraged with the world, I found that the flow of a novella would bring me joy and happiness. It gave me something I cannot explain, something that is beyond understanding.

For some people, reading is their aid. For others, meditation is the key (although I practise this concept alongside writing). For each person, there is something that aids them when nothing else works. I cannot explain it. It seems that human nature has produced something that we cannot explain but we must all be thankful for. Without the beauty of yoga, people would find themselves in stressful situations without something to fall back on. Without the power of karma, people would act without act. There are so many things in this world that we cannot explain. There are things in this world that are just so...empowering.

To say the least, this post does not have the happiest of ending. I find that writing no longer offers me that aid. It has become nothing more than a chore upon my time. Once, I had very little to do and I required something to occupy my time. Now, I have something to occupy my time. I have a social life. What does that mean for my writing? Now, I feel I am writing out of necessity. In the first few months of my 'new' life, I could handle writing because it was pleasurable. It was a relaxant. It had some effect but it seems that effect is slowly diminishing.

I do not blame the writers themselves, though I am to blame in some respects. In truth, I wish that I could do more. I find that there is no time to resolve those issues which are at the heart of my misery. There are something in this world that are inevitable. Of course, nothing is unchangeable. I do not believe that we are destined to become a certain person, live a certain life, etc. Of course, this is an entirely separate issue and I will raise it elsewhere. What I believe is that our choices affect our life but we only have particular choices. I believe in Karma.

I want to be able to impact the writing process. I want people to return to their former glories. I want people to have that choice, to have a place to write, a place to read, a place to meditate. Everything is slowly diminishing. The world is in a transition period and we are at the pinnacle of it - human beings. We have the choice, here and now, to take it in one direction or the other. That choice is ours to make. We can watch the world slide into disrepair or we can make it a better place. It is your choice.

Understanding the Nature of Thought

One of the problems that all men have is that of the concept of the conscience. We are designed, and indeed programmed, to contemplate the deep meanings of those things which have the greatest importance in our lives. We are taught, throughout our childhood, that the greatest tool man possesses is his mind, the power of the thought. In fact, it was a seventeenth century judge who declared us as being 'reasonable creatures in being'. As far as one can understand the term 'reasonable', this judge was, in fact, referring to the concept of the power of reason, to understand the difference between right and wrong. It was the power of thought that made us reasonable.

Throughout the centuries and more so in recent decades we have come to argue as to what the concept of thought is, how it is that we induce thought and stimulate thought. Are our thoughts all the same? Are our values and attitudes similar to one another, ingrained in us by societal standards? For one sociologist, this was the case. Durkheim stipulated that our thoughts and processes related to a 'collective conscience' which was expressed through a number of different functions within society. For example, our values on the sanctity of life, the value of property and so forth were dictated through a common set of values known as laws, enforced by the function of the judiciary. He argued that our values and beliefs on children and childhood were reinforced through the education system, by a commonly held system of beliefs that was shown through different functions.

According to Durkheim, this collective conscience stimulated the concept of reason and therefore allowed us to create a harmonious society that was indeed based on consensus values. Of course, this does not answer the question 'where does thought come from?', it merely postulates as to what thought is, or at least, a form of thought. For the formation of thought, we must look towards religious scripture. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian religion believes that thought, the knowledge of good and evil, comes not from ourselves but as a gift from God. It is stated in the Bible, more accurately the Old Testament, or the Torah for the Jewish, that thought was a creation of man's curiosity, a desire to be 'better' than perfection. Religious believers hold that evil thoughts come from the devil and that he is to blame for the error of our ways.

For many psychologists, and for the growing number of atheists, this is an inadequate explanation. Scientists continued to be baffled by the neuro-processes of the brain. Psychologists explain that thought is merely a phenomenon of the human body, of the brain. For the far and few who have tried to define thought, there has been little success. What do people truly believe is thought? What do you hold to be 'thought'? Do you hold religious convictions and therefore hold that thought is a gift from God? Are you an atheist and continue to seek an explanation for those small processes which make up the matter of the mind?

Understanding the Philosophies of Love [Article]

The nature of love is a complex and confusion principle, one that has led philosophers to consider love with great thought and thus should be considered one of the true mysteries of life itself. It is a philosophical matter that transcends a number of disciplines including that of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, human nature, politics and ethics but still the matter is often argued amongst philosophers. Love, and the nature of, often draws upon central theories of philosophy and is often compared with the philosophies of sex and gender. The philosophy of love itself has the task of present appropriate issues in a cogent manner, considering the relevant theories of human nature, desire and ethics. The matter at hand, however, remains questionable; does love have a nature?

Those that propose that love is conceptually irrational, in the meaning that it cannot be described in rational or meaningful propositions often present a metaphysical and epistemological argument which would insinuate that love is the ejection of emotions which defy rational examination. Some critics also imply the principle of language such as Papuan, which does not admit the concept of love and thus negates the possibility of philosophical examination. In English, however, the word love is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which leads to problems of definition and meaning, resolved to some extent in the reference to the Greek Terms, Eros, philia and agape.

Implying that love has a nature in itself, it should be considered that, even in Greek times, few philosophers could fixate themselves upon a definition of the term love. Plato, in his writings, defines Eros as a common desire that seeks transcendental beauty whilst is also referred to as constituting a passionate, intense desire for something, commonly defined as a sexual desire which leads to the modern notion of erotic. Aristotle, however, implied the notion that love entails a fondness and appreciation of the other, incorporating not only loyalties to friendship, but to family and one's political community, job, or discipline, commonly known as philia. To further confuse the matter amongst Greek philosophers, a final meaning was implied in the reference to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God, known in the Greek language as agape.

Accepting that love has a nature, despite the confusion between philosophers, it should be, to some extent, describable within the concepts of language. Love, to some, may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in phrases such as I am in love with you' or I love you', but it still remains a mysterious concept in itself. It still remains clouded in confusion, deriving from Greek language itself to that of English language but few can define love with such a simple basis. In definition, love is not a nature that is describable except in basic language but the true meaning, both of the emotion and the nature, must be further considered to understand such concepts, including that of romantic love and the ethics of such love.

In a final consideration, the definition of love itself is confused as the ethical aspects are included. The subject raises questions as to whether it is ethically acceptable to love an object, or to love oneself or whether love, in principle, should be considered a duty. Love, to some, can be considered as an instantiation of social dominance in which the structure of language and etiquette of love is designed to empower men and disempower women. If the language and notions of love were discarded from social dominance, women too would be empowered and thus it further confuses the nature; should love be considered dominant to a single group?

Understanding Intellect and Emotions [Article]

Intellect and Emotion are two of the diverse subjects that are often upon the mind of philosophers across the world, some stating that Intellect and Emotion cannot be united in their focus because of the differences of each one and the contradictions between the two whilst others state that such perceptions are biased and that Intellect and Emotion must coexist with one another for a person to survive. However, the question still remains, who is right in this matter? Should we believe that we are expected to follow one or the other, should we believe that the coexistence of Intellect and Emotion will lead to our salvation in life?

It is a complex question to answer, one that might have a thousand different answers for each person but it is one that we must all answer for ourselves, for our soul and mind. Intellect is something that most possess, whether it be in art, in science or in general knowledge, we have a form of Intellect within us and thus it is evident that, because we depend upon our mind to offer us answers to questions that we ask, Intellect is the more important of the two but what is it that makes Emotion so important in life?

Emotion, as it stands, is something that we cannot understand. Describe happiness; it's impossible, for each person, it is different, similar to how the focus of our Intellect depends upon the person and their interests. If our Intellect offers us answers to questions, our Emotion must, to follow suit that Intellect and Emotion cannot coexist, contradict the statement. As an example, consider the nature of Love, Intellect would have it described as an emotion, a single word used to describe an emotion but our soul describes it as so much more; love is beautiful, harmonious and peaceful, love is the light in the darkness, etc. A contradiction in statements, is it not?

Look deeper into the meaning, Emotion, in my opinion, is an extension of Intellect that helps us to better define our lives. When we are in school, we depend upon our Intellect to help us pass exams but it is our Emotion that guides us through, telling us how we should feel, should we be nervous, frightened or happy. Without Emotion, we are no more than robots with a large capacity for knowledge but with Emotion, we become human and thus, in my opinion, Emotion and Intellect must coexist for us to exist as humans.

0F05BA50-97B7-BAE8-DA27-CEE904C9E505

1.02.05

The Universe [Reflections]

The Universe, a concept that has been under examination across the world for centuries, there is no true definition of this mass which we all live within. Scientists continue to study the universe, probing into the darkness of the skies, examining stars and planets in a search for an answer to a question which has not been asked whilst philosophers continue to discuss the plausibility of an infinite universe, the existence of extra-terrestrial lifeforms and whether the universe truly exists or if it is a concept of our minds.

What concept of the Universe that is in question; the size of the Universe is said to be greater than that which we could comprehend and it is said that it is expanding and thus a figure could not be created, the Universe is said to hold millions upon millions of stars which have little relevance except to offer light and guidance during the night but the stars seem to have a far greater meaning to some; the stars are a symbol of hope to Christian, the north star is a sign of guidance and protection whilst others believe it is no more than the decoration upon the black canvas of life.

There is little understanding of the questions that philosophers continue to ask, in truth, the question has long since been forgotten and arguments continue to fall upon deaf ears as society advances and becomes ignorant to the facts of life that scientists are studying. One question that has continued to linger in the air between scientists and philosophers is whether the Universe is infinite or if the Universe will implode upon itself and fall into in-existence. What arguments could each present that would have some meaning to those who wander the streets, blissfully unaware of the study and research that continues in laboratories and rooms?

Scientists have continued to remind us that the sun is expanding in its size, we have been told that the sun will expand to such a size that it will consume the Earth in its quest for energy for its short life but does that mean that the Universe is finite? We are but one small piece of the jigsaw puzzle and scientists have provided no answers to this question. Perhaps it is philosophers that we should look towards for answers, the ones who question reality and discuss what would be seen as impossible.

One man once discussed that we must first understand whether the past is infinite; the past is the choice which we are presented, the present in the choice we make and the future is the reaction to that choice and thus, if we consider that if the choice no longer exists, life can no longer exist, it seems evident that the Universe must be infinite for the past to remain infinite. Still, philosophers have continued to state that the Universe might be infinite, perhaps it is not and thus we still remained clueless.

Is that what the Universe is? Unexplainable and having no meaning in our lives except for the continuation of our existence? If we do not understand it, how is it that we can continue to argue the finer details. The Universe, as I see it, is indescribable and will remain so until we learn the answers to the questions we impose upon scientists and philosophers.