to act or not to act

at some point, the inevitable decision is to either act, or not act. we're supposed to accept whichever outcome, but it doesn't help us decide which way to go. we're supposed to stick to our principles and be receptive and non-attached - two diametrically opposite notions.

i suppose, that's when feelings and hunches take over, since logic is no longer reliable, particularly in cases when there's insufficient information and a decision needs to be made.

the core

one theory of great product design is when nothing else can be taken away - everything is reduced to the barest functional minimum. after rounds and rounds of trial and error, the result is a simple, functional, and light product.

one of the enduring questions is whether there exists some core of our being, some higher self, that is lies either beyond or within the deepest realms of our physical body.

my current thinking is that since our consciousness is an emergent phenomena (an illusion of self created from the bundle of recursive neurons), there isn't some core that can be physically located - once we try to parse things out, like hofstadter's imaginary marble, we find there's nothing to be found.

perhaps, another way to think about this is what happens when we strip out parts of our life, bit by bit. extraneous things, like useless add-ons to a product, are chipped away, one part at a time. rather than some tangible existential core, perhaps, it's better considered a quest for the deep knowledge and comfort in the barest minimum.

the metaphorical core, perhaps, is the state of existence of having less and less, until, there's nothing else to take away.

undone things

there are a only few reasons why things actually get done, but a thousand reasons why things don't get done.

most things don't get done by thinking about them (and this blog is an exception, i suppose, and even so, it requires putting thoughts to words, not exactly an automatic process).

so... i have to be careful how about which things to think a lot about, and which things to tell myself, fuck it, i'm doing it.

it's impossible to know the exact line when additional thinking becomes overthinking, but if i'm rehashing the same points, and further information and insights aren't forthcoming, well, it's time to stop using thinking as a procrastination tool.

the magic wand

for a moment, assume, i have a magic wand, and suddenly, i've reached some sort of perfect spiritual bliss and ultimate compassionate level. then... what happens?

will i examine every action, and if it's feasible, change it so all my actions are in sync with my new-found knowledge?

spend the rest of my life in a cave, enjoying this bliss?

do everything normally, and enjoying this bliss anyway since i've seen through it all?

like they say, devote to selfless service to mankind, as those kinds of actions can utilize the full extent of my new-found compassion?

or, my puny mind simply wouldn't comprehend? but even if i don't comprehend, what are these enlightened individuals among us actually doing on a day-to-day basis?

ends vs means

assuming we're working on the basis that we have some semblance of decision making abilities, whether an illusion or otherwise (otherwise, this can easily devolve into a "nothing matters" self-fulfilling prophecy)

one school of thought (where i belong to at the moment) believes goals are necessary. i don't think they are an end, rather, a mean to the means. i'm fully convinced the process is the important part - but for certain people, having a goal helps me get into the process. an end needs the means to complete it - and the means need an end to jump-start it. how much weight i attribute to the means or the ends is a learned matter. but having an end is pretty important. critics ask me what happens when i run out of goals, and aren't i still subscribing to the rat-race mentality, setting goals and trying to achieve them?

the other school of thought, while we agree on the importance of the process, believes setting out goals and ends are futile - planning ahead makes no sense as things almost never turn out the way they're supposed to, so rather, we should "go with the flow". if an intention comes along, our intuition will tell us what to do - there's no need to analyze and plan our next step. if no intention comes along, we simply go with non-action. setting goals goes against the essence of letting things be. critics wonder if the act of "un-intention" is a decision in itself, and we are deluding ourselves into thinking are letting destiny take complete control of us. and in all practicality, the fact that there are decisions to be made every moment - unintentional decision-making seems to be a contradiction in terms.

what are the differences?

in the first camp - a lot more mental energy is devoted to figuring out what kind of goal there should be. this arguably could be wasted mental energy - there's no guarantee that i) the goal is appropriate or ii) it's necessary to "jump-start" the process, one could just as easily fall into the process due to circumstances, situations, etc.

in the second camp - the focus is on present and not some distant possibly achievable or unachievable goal. the innate trust in their intuition is much stronger, and they have little/no issue in following it. if a direction emerges that presents a substantial conflict with their current life, they don't need to agonize much over the appropriate decision, but rather, believe they'll be picking whatever they were supposed to pick, good or bad.

in a way, i envy the people in the second camp. what it comes down to, is i do not trust my intuition as yet. perhaps i've confused intuition and impulse, but i know for a fact my impulses should not always be acted on (trust me). i remain convinced best decisions are made after a good bit of investigation.

the real key is the full belief in whatever it is i'm doing. the first way is the long road of analysis, leaving as many stoned unturned as to the best of my abilities, so i am convinced beyond doubt. alternatively, i grow to trust my instincts. and how to do that? since i don't seem to be able to suddenly force myself into a belief that i don't subscribe to, the current remaining method is to think really long and hard, and to gain instincts via experience (real or imagined)? until i figure out a way convince myself to take the proverbial leap of faith and start believing in my intuitions?

we must be free, since we must make choices

absolute certainty in the future, under quantum mechanics, is theoretically impossible.

are we thus "condemned to freedom"? not because we can make choices, but we must make choices?

the futility of words

it's been said by wise men that truth and true understanding cannot be described by words. spiritual wisdom, can only be attained via spiritual learning.

so are words futile?

words, in a way, have always been simply a rough sketch and a low fidelity version of things, thoughts, happenings.

perhaps what i might need to remember, is that words can guide us to a space to think, but the words themselves are usually not where the final answers lie.

the problem of attempting to making sense of things

the world really is a helluva confusing place. (and i do my part to contribute quite a bit too)

people/i:

- say things that they don't mean; don't say the things they really mean;

- change their minds with their reasons, but their reasons don't make sense for anyone except themselves;

- are rational probably only 50% of the time, but no one knows which 50%;

- are selfish to the point it's self-damaging, but they continue anyway.

things:

- never go according to plan;

- go according to plan when we least expect it, which is not that helpful;

- are very good at obeying murphy's law;

- have a way of challenging and contradicting the very rules of life we wish to follow.

the world is inherently inconsistent, yet, i try so hard to have it make sense. things theoretically happen for a reason, and they may be too numerous and complicated for me to grasp, but there's always a reason, cause and effect. the problem is what we perceive as cause-and-effect are generalized ideals and experiences.

we equate good intentions with good results, while the world in reality has no concern for such. when our human/ideal world coincides with reality, we believe things make sense. when they separate, sometimes with terribly unfair occurrences from the human perspective, things don't make sense, to us.

our brains are simply not equipped to make sense of the interactions the trillions of actions and reactions every milli second, so are we destined to "trapped" in our human perspectives? that we will have an opinion of how things are supposed to make sense, even though reality will deviate, sometimes by a lot? however we adjust our beliefs, reality will never match up since these things are simply on different levels?

or, perhaps, the thing to realize is what we view as "making sense" is simply a tool for us to function in life, rather than the ultimate goal of all things?

simple growth?

perhaps, personal growth is as simple as prioritizing - prioritizing long term well-being over medium/short term shots of nice endorphins.

on one hand, learning delayed gratification, and on the other, finding gratification within and during the delayed gratification itself?

equality, justice, fairness

do i want to contribute to social equality? (not so sure, the world was never meant to be a fair place to start with)

do i want to contribute to social inequality? (well, i don't necessarily want to actively make it more unequal, but if we were to take from the rich and redistribute to the poor, that wouldn't be fair. the rich got there via hard work and brains. ok, maybe luck too, but they worked harder and were smarter than the poor in any case. the poor had unequal opportunities? it's impractical to get everyone on the same starting line - so it's a reality we need to live with?)

do i want to contribute to justice? (our society has laws, and in any case the universe has its own way of doling out justice right? i don't necessarily have to get involved)

do i want to contribute to injustice? (well, no, but only up to a point. but if not buying really expensive fair trade coffee contributes to injustice for farmers, there's only so much i can do)

do i want to contribute to fairness? (now, that's different from justice and equality. so i would go for fairness. fairness is good. how far am i willing to go? as far as i can, as long nothing is taken away from me that i have rightfully earned. what's rightfully earned? anything that i earned legitimately, that is not at the expense of others)

do i want to contribute to unfairness? (definitely no, unfairness is very bad, and if i can avoid it, i don't want to make the world more unfair than it already is. how is unfairness different from injustice? injustices are these big complicated matters that i alone will have little or no effect. unfairness is much easier to deal with, and in a way, i come across it every day)

but if i do nothing, am i neither contributing to equality nor inequality, justice nor injustice, fairness nor unfairness? does non-action make me blameless?

when does the line cross from simple indifference to willful ignorance? in short, does moral responsibility exist? and how far does one go even if i accept there should be some degree of such?

the standard answer is however much is necessary for us to live in good conscience. 只要对得住良心。

maybe, the level of this conscience isn't something we can simply control. we go through our lives, experiences, think our own thoughts - and our minds arrive at some appropriate level of morality that suits us. rather than something to aspire to, it's something that emerges out of our lives?

misrepresentation

when does the line cross from making a good impression to outright misrepresentation?

who is to blame?

the government?

the businessmen, who exploit the masses for profit? (worse still, they use machines to replace workers, and hence further unemployment issues?)

the people who buy these things?

the consumer culture ruthlessly marketed to us?

the people who didn't have time to do their research before making purchases?

the people who researched but couldn't afford the more expensive but cruelty-free fair-trade versions?

at some point, for more complicated matters, we come to the realization the blame is spread so thinly through different parties, the question "who is to blame" is no longer meaningful. but that doesn't stop us from finding that one group or individual that we regard as mostly liable for. (and that usually isn't ourselves).

that said, in a world of no absolute rights and wrongs, some kind of movement along the shades of grey is still necessary. inaction because of the lack of absolute certainty easily deteriorates excuses and passive cynicism. afterall, action is a pretty good laboratory for the random introspection that we come up with.

observing the observer

every day, i'm searching for something i might write about. there are always little snippets that might be interesting. then i remember... i've gone over that topic before, or that's too common sense and pointless, or there's no way for me to explain this coherently, or this has too many layers of argument to think through and i'm just tired.

but this constant search does seem to be changing things, bit by bit.

every time my emotions go whack, i wonder about the state of things that got me there, and if this particular instance is going to provide myself with something to write. all of a sudden, the focus goes from "i'm so angry" to "can i write about this?" to "hmm... so what exactly is making my brain angry?"

bit by bit, my anger shifts to the viewpoint of a curious observer. at the same time, i wonder if i'm too concerned about writing about the particular instance, than actually experiencing the moment itself? isn't it normal to feel emotions, if i coldly overanalyze, am i minimizing my human soul? what about all the exhortations about living life with passion? i.e., we can't think happiness, we can only feel happiness?

so far, fortunately, my self-experiment is telling me this is not the case.

positive emotions actually don't interest me much (despite my goal of not being annoyed, announcing that "i love my life" is possibly one of the most annoying things ever, even to myself). so i seem to be mostly interested in observing the not-so-fun aspects of life.

the sense of curiosity extends beyond thinking about thinking, which is incredibly taxing. (so this dispassionate viewpoint seems to kick in only when i need it). when things are neutral, i find myself simply more curious about things. i don't know quite know what kind of emotion it is, it's definitely not a negative one, neither is it a highly positive one. it's more a "wow, that's cool" kind of thing.

so are things now passionless and i lead an empty existence? i have no idea, but i seem to feel generally more alive than i ever have been (yet increasingly less concerned about death). and still, i have no idea how to gel these obvious contradictions.

some teachings state that a realization of the nature of emptiness, i.e. there is no immutable independent essence, is the same realization of the intrinsic inter-relation of all entities, and thus the impermanence and ludicrousness of independent existence and viewpoints - which then leads to a better understanding of non-attachment.

a long way of trying to understand who, exactly, is observing the observer.

the challenge of choice

choice is freedom; choice is a luxury; choice helps us make decisions; choice makes us petty; choice is paralyzing.

the real challenge, is to challenge the choices that are presented by life, and to ponder why we make them, rather than on what kind of choices we are offered.

different causes

some causes are possibly more important than others, but it rarely matters.

people care about different things, and for the vast vast majority, this is going to be driven by gut reaction, rather than some kind of cold hard analysis.

things indeed are going to be allocated to the guys who are better at marketing, and capturing the attention and hearts of the listeners.

the greatest cause, i think, is instilling the seed of self-reflection. then, hopefully, the wheels start to turn.

well-meaning poor advice

the world is not short of this, and will never be.

(i am possibly quite a frequent contributor)

what to do?

sometimes we're supposed to listen to our own intuition.

sometimes we're supposed to just trust someone who has been there.

sometimes we're supposed to do nothing, ride the wave, and see where it takes us.

things get complicated when we only have one shot, no chance for trial-and-error, there's no turning back.

actually. these are the best times to remember the illusion of freewill. (and that goes for the advice-giver too).

even before the decision itself, we couldn't have decided any other way, even if we tried.

mike tyson

came across an interview with mike tyson, which by most accounts is a truly damaged individual, having gone through the very extreme peaks and depths of life.

he has known glamour, glory, prison, ridicule, despair. he knows he has to transcend something, though he is uncertain how to go about it.

"Discipline is doing what you hate to do, but nonetheless doing it like you love it."

"And how do you do that?"

"With discipline."

"It's just a simple question of humility. If you're not humble, life will visit humbleness upon you. I can talk about humility, but I'm not humble. I mean, if you say, "I'm humble," you've just contradicted yourself. But I'm trying to be, man, I'm trying so hard."

three easy steps

courtesy of "the insubordinate", the three easy steps to remember:

- do endless research

- push yourself to do plenty of analysis

- have the courage of your convictions to actually make it happen

darkest before dawn

the long, dark night of the soul - is the period when god, self, and soul as we knew them are no longer to be found.

it is in these depths, that the futility of it all, transforms into the ultimate liberation of the self.

a short summary

a short summary of a path so far.

1. grow up in a christian education environment, assuming everyone else thinks the same way.

2. get exposed to atheism, inherent unprovability of religion. become agnostic.

3. thoughts about agnosticism and atheism give way to semi-disillusionment with the meaning of life, unsure about what it's all supposed to mean. decide there are more important things to worry about, like career, money, girls.

4. begin to explore contemporary research on happiness, elevation, and positive psychology. renewed interest in science, particularly the nature of consciousness, quantum physics and cosmology.

5a. begin to see the illusion of consciousness (emergence from loopy neurons), time and space (relativity, quantum weirdness), reality itself (schrodinger's cat, heisenberg uncertainty principle). not sure what it exactly means, but enough to see that these extremely difficult subjects are unresolved by the brightest minds on the planet.

5b. meet two very wise people who have thought lots about these matters, and begin to examine the philosophies that describe the illusory nature of reality and the ego.

6. begin to investigate the nature and benefits of compassion, selflessness, and desireless action.

so, where to go from here?

will i suddenly return to the passive kind of nihilism, where effort is simply too difficult?

will i decide that all this contemplation is nice but impractical?

how does possible understanding of such matters affect the reality i inhabit? will i really be able to move along this ladder, and how do i know if it's the right way to go? i can't know for sure of course, but doesn't understanding these matters imply i actually know that this is the way, regardless of how it turns out?

dangers of moral superiority

in my little quest of trying to be a better person, i am increasingly aware of the irony that should i wonder if i might actually be "better" than others, i've gone backwards.

in short, the moment i think i am morally superior, i'm no longer superior.

certainly, we all know how annoying self-righteousness and dogmatic virtue is, and we've been consistently disappointed by self-professed saints. besides being annoying, perhaps, one of the great dangers is to fall into the trap of narrow-mindedness, where the worldview is simplified into areas of either good and bad - without realizing everyone else is behaving their own particular way, because it's the only way they know how to.

the real task, as always, is to get all of us to think about our own actions, and ask ourselves to consider whether it was for the best.

different types of peaks?

i wonder, when i'm striving for a particular goal, am i hoping just to complete it, or i think i'll gain something new once i get there?

when i hike up a particular peak, more often than not i'm just wondering if there's anything else to see. of course, there are those massive ones i'm happy just to reach it. by the time i get to the top, the view's only so-so, or there's no time to savor the moment, and i need to rush back down.

i need both types of goals, i suppose, but i might be better off focusing on ones that offer a better view of life if and when i get there? or, things are too hard to predict so i can never tell which kinds of experience end up with better views?

same old, over and over

it really is fascinating how questions about existence, truth, justice, morality, gods, have bothered human beings for as long as anyone remembers. each of us are around for a few decades, during which, we repeat the same questions, learn about the same concepts, read the same classics, listen to the wise people of our respective eras, and hopefully die happier.

i'm reminded of leoben's quote, "all this has happened before, and all of it will happen again".

the two-pronged approach

if everything is predestined, and life is inherently meaningless and all meaning is a solely an artificial construct of the human mind, what's the point of making an effort to do anything?

how does one go from a negative, despairing view to a positive, life-embracing one?

so perhaps, the logic leap is this: if nothing matters at all, the only thing that matters is how we feel. and personally, i prefer feeling nice to feeling bad.

if there's a way to feel good without making any effort in life, then, by all means (we might starve, but perhaps some of us don't mind). for most of us, we aren't quite wired that way. feeling good entails attempting things, achieving things, to get that sense that we're doing, we're fulfilling something. of course, we're mostly focusing on the fulfillment portion - when we fail, it's not really not so good. but if we never try, we're also stuck with the sense of regret. sometimes, it seems like a winless situation. at least, that's how my brain seems to have been wired. not that i wished it to be or not to be wired like this - it seems to just have happened that way.

so the paradox of doing our best and being non-attached will surely remain a paradox, but in a way it's a two-pronged approach to the issue of maintaining well-being. on one hand, being non-attached is the practice of feeling good without making any effort, and accepting things as they are. on the other, we know not trying really doesn't feel good either. so we have to try, and try really hard. before we fully realize the nature of success and failure, the non-attachment part starts to help dull the pain of failure.

so desireless action, is the ideal. non-action for the most part does not work, as the lack of fulfillment is so strong that it can easily start the cycle of hopelessness, overshadowing any progress made on the non-attachment front.

ultimately, when we realize there is joy in action itself, the emphasis we place on results lessen, until, one day, they don't matter much anymore.

reasons for things people do

a lot of times, i forget there are several layers of reasons why certain people do certain things. there's the most obvious reason; then there's the more important but difficult-to-see reason.

sometimes, they don't tell us because they want to keep it a secret; other times, we wouldn't understand at that point anyway so they'd rather stay silent; still other times, they made it pretty clear, we just weren't paying enough attention.

fear of failure

things to remind myself:

fear of failure is a lot worse than failure itself.

if fear is the reason keeping me from leaving a job behind to take on new challenges, i'm really not that good.

no one promised me some bright shining future. there is nothing in the world i'm entitled to. for many, the very act of hope is a luxury.

material comforts are overrated. some basic ones are nice. for extra stuff, once in a while is ok. but there is simply no need for a lot of it.

social status is the most inane thing ever to seek.

good intentions are impractical, but failing with good intentions is much better than failing with poor intentions. the supposedly "stable" thing is probably not as stable as i think.

fear/uncertainty/uneasiness are emotions. generally speaking the physical events in the world will occur in one way or another, regardless of how we feel about them.

things for a price

in theory, for most things, there is a price, that ranges somewhere between zero and priceless. (and, well, i seem to have the good fortune to have my patience tested for free)

some things i'll do for a price, some things i'll pay a price to be able to do, and some things i won't do for any price. (this applies to things that are done to me as well)

camus famously said, "i love justice, but i will defend my mother before justice". i love principles, but practicality is also pretty damn important, and sometimes these things don't quite gel with each other.

as far as i can tell, everyone has done something "because it's good money". with good money, we can buy nice things for ourselves, our loved ones, and even donate some of it out.

when does good money cross the line to become not-so-good money?

after the match

any result is such a random confluence of effort, circumstance, and chance.

winning or losing is the most important thing during the match; how we conduct ourselves afterwards is the most important thing in life?

who am i living for?

i lived for good grades, to please my teachers, my parents.

i lived for my friends, to do what was considered cool.

i lived for my job, to make the money i thought was appropriate for someone with my education.

i lived for general social approval, because it felt nice.

i started to question what people wanted for myself, and what i had assumed i wanted to live for, and started to try to live for myself, to find out what i truly wanted.

and upon deeper thought and reflection, i now find out there's no real "me", no real "self"? are you kidding me?!

don't panic

famous words on the cover of the "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy", this should definitely go in my little rule book, if i ever do one for myself.

we know that panic creates more panic. we know we're supposed to say calm when the shit hits the fan, only that we can't. but some people can. some are born with nerves of steel, and ice in their blood. others leave everything in the hands of god. some others see through the illusion of personal freewill and choice. still others have given up the fruits of their labor, so the result does not concern them. unfortunately i don't exactly fit any of these categories.

to overly generalize without any physiological expertise, panic seems to be the fight-or-flight response that is triggered when we're fearful. and we're fearful when we think we're in danger. and today, the danger is usually not immediately life-threatening, but rather something that we may fail at and hence need to bear the consequences.

so panic seems to be a vestige of the era when we were actually in daily mortal danger. it's easy to forget, but our reaction comes down to how we perceive the situation. and we're much more likely to do everything we can to build the cushion, to avoid this fear, than to spend the time to train our minds.

starting lines

as i came across different hikers today, everyone was struggling on this incredibly hot day, and i wondered to myself how far each of them had already hiked.

the guy zooming past me - did he just start and hence he was still full of energy? how about the lady slowly trudging along, is she just slow or has she been hiking all day?

unless i stopped to ask, of course i wouldn't be able to find out.

we love to compare ourselves to others, though we already know we all have different starting lines in life. and most of the time, rather than find out, we'll simply make up our own reasons for where they are at this point.