why do the days feel so long and yet the years so fleeting?
i think it is a flaw in the human memory, that it is selective, and selects at a level that is not directly accessible to what we can consciously process, such that we are able to recall only key events, and not the in-between periods that really run the hours by.
i think it is another flow that we tend to have a bias, to remember the good or the bad things. based on general or first impressions - conclusions jumped at without proof. and i think this memory helps people come to terms with life, and help them think that everything is worth the sweat, blood and tears.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
happiness is a chemical reaction.
and i think it can be created when one dwells on the idea of being free.
but i think the same mechanism that causes one to dwell on the idea of being free, can be manipulated to cause one to feel otherwise.
therefore it would be good risk management
to be part of multiple models that potentially causes one to feel freedom.
that would mean that it could be advisable to form multiple sub-identities, each with its own history that explains its existence.
one example could be:
1) identity at work
2) identity when alone (eg religious/political affiliation, social cause)
3) identity at social settings (eg, family, friends, strangers, neighbors, overseas)
i do not believe there is any system that merits our total trust that it is complete good-willed in making us free - all systems need a self-preservation mechanism that works for itself. each system tries to be complete within itself, so that it denies the existence of other systems. yes, they try to be in harmony, but is that really the case? and let us not forget the human ability to "empathize", forming pre-conceived ideas that are derived from a vicarious experience, potentially creating among participants a reality that didn't initially exist.
wait, there is one other system that is less prone to such weakness.
it is one's basic perception.
to be in the present, hearing the sounds, smelling the scents, feeling the physical heat or pain or pleasure - and resisting trying to interpret any of them. this leads one to a model of explanation of reality that "it just is" - and experiencing the freedom would be dwelling in this state of "just is"-ness. Because this is based on your own perception, you can tweak it to your own advantage.
but the difficult part is resisting the temptation of interpretation.
human beings as a species have chose cognition and reason as its means of coping with change. this choice i think, is an effect of the mechanisms that works out for the self-preservation of the life of the human species - which of course, never promised to be kind to the individual.
and i think it can be created when one dwells on the idea of being free.
but i think the same mechanism that causes one to dwell on the idea of being free, can be manipulated to cause one to feel otherwise.
therefore it would be good risk management
to be part of multiple models that potentially causes one to feel freedom.
that would mean that it could be advisable to form multiple sub-identities, each with its own history that explains its existence.
one example could be:
1) identity at work
2) identity when alone (eg religious/political affiliation, social cause)
3) identity at social settings (eg, family, friends, strangers, neighbors, overseas)
i do not believe there is any system that merits our total trust that it is complete good-willed in making us free - all systems need a self-preservation mechanism that works for itself. each system tries to be complete within itself, so that it denies the existence of other systems. yes, they try to be in harmony, but is that really the case? and let us not forget the human ability to "empathize", forming pre-conceived ideas that are derived from a vicarious experience, potentially creating among participants a reality that didn't initially exist.
wait, there is one other system that is less prone to such weakness.
it is one's basic perception.
to be in the present, hearing the sounds, smelling the scents, feeling the physical heat or pain or pleasure - and resisting trying to interpret any of them. this leads one to a model of explanation of reality that "it just is" - and experiencing the freedom would be dwelling in this state of "just is"-ness. Because this is based on your own perception, you can tweak it to your own advantage.
but the difficult part is resisting the temptation of interpretation.
human beings as a species have chose cognition and reason as its means of coping with change. this choice i think, is an effect of the mechanisms that works out for the self-preservation of the life of the human species - which of course, never promised to be kind to the individual.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
happiness is a chemical reaction.
and i think it can be created when one experiences freedom.
and i think this experience of freedom can be created
with a memory that causes one to dwell on the idea of being free.
when one takes the reality around him for granted, there is no reference point as to how freedom can be measured, except with a further release, or a new captivity. but when one learns a version of history that explains what took them where they are, one now has a mental model to measure out just how free they are.
this memory could be one's personal history, one's inherited "traditions", history of the region or country or the world. or this memory could be a myth, a legend, a religion, a story that explains how the world got to be. whether or not such a story is real impacts only how believable the story is. once one is able to subscribe to the story, how much truth it has is practically irrelevant.
is this then simply a lie?
well, yes, because happiness is just a chemical reaction.
at this point, all the obsession
our current civilization has with "truth",
seems somewhat laughable.
and i think it can be created when one experiences freedom.
and i think this experience of freedom can be created
with a memory that causes one to dwell on the idea of being free.
when one takes the reality around him for granted, there is no reference point as to how freedom can be measured, except with a further release, or a new captivity. but when one learns a version of history that explains what took them where they are, one now has a mental model to measure out just how free they are.
this memory could be one's personal history, one's inherited "traditions", history of the region or country or the world. or this memory could be a myth, a legend, a religion, a story that explains how the world got to be. whether or not such a story is real impacts only how believable the story is. once one is able to subscribe to the story, how much truth it has is practically irrelevant.
is this then simply a lie?
well, yes, because happiness is just a chemical reaction.
at this point, all the obsession
our current civilization has with "truth",
seems somewhat laughable.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
happiness is a chemical reaction.
and i think it can be created when one experiences freedom.
which means that it must be
1. experienced, not just owned
2. a release from something
following which we might also say that it
3. does not imply that the release must be permanent
4. lasts as long as the experience of it
marriages could be a model for continuous release and return to restriction, with the couple reinforcing each other about their experiences of release.
"joy" as some religions like to differentiate from "happiness", could be a mental strategy that allows one to experience the freedom beyond the duration of a physical event. rituals and anniversaries help to keep experiences fresh. "hope" - could be a mental strategy that causes one to continuously experience a freedom by postponing its realization indefinitely into the future. In this case while the freedom itself may not be real, but the experience of it can be.
which means that religion could be a viable technology to create happiness without energy consumption. but religion, when institutionalized, is responsible for its own energy costs.
isn't there a way we can continuously experience freedom without all the tricks?
and i think it can be created when one experiences freedom.
which means that it must be
1. experienced, not just owned
2. a release from something
following which we might also say that it
3. does not imply that the release must be permanent
4. lasts as long as the experience of it
marriages could be a model for continuous release and return to restriction, with the couple reinforcing each other about their experiences of release.
"joy" as some religions like to differentiate from "happiness", could be a mental strategy that allows one to experience the freedom beyond the duration of a physical event. rituals and anniversaries help to keep experiences fresh. "hope" - could be a mental strategy that causes one to continuously experience a freedom by postponing its realization indefinitely into the future. In this case while the freedom itself may not be real, but the experience of it can be.
which means that religion could be a viable technology to create happiness without energy consumption. but religion, when institutionalized, is responsible for its own energy costs.
isn't there a way we can continuously experience freedom without all the tricks?
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Q: does the lack of sufferring imply happiness? does dettachment mean being without a point of reference?
A: not happiness in terms of the fulfillment of desires, but an absolute peace from extinguishing desires - a happiness based on freedom from the burden of desires ... detachment means to be able to see the world without the illusions that we contruct for ourselves in our perceptions of reality - the point of reference is the fundamental natures of all things
Q: but does reality exist without perception? without language, without the idea of color, without the idea of taste? is it possible to be truly without attachment, or is the state of being without attachment a constructed reality that is based on the less volatile nature of things?
A: not happiness in terms of the fulfillment of desires, but an absolute peace from extinguishing desires - a happiness based on freedom from the burden of desires ... detachment means to be able to see the world without the illusions that we contruct for ourselves in our perceptions of reality - the point of reference is the fundamental natures of all things
Q: but does reality exist without perception? without language, without the idea of color, without the idea of taste? is it possible to be truly without attachment, or is the state of being without attachment a constructed reality that is based on the less volatile nature of things?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)