Limit

I do not believe in eternity. No, I am just not that kind of girl.

I believe there is a limit in everything we do. There is only so much we can take, to tolerate, to accept from the world. Water heats to a certain extent to let go of its form and turn into steam. Water cools down to a certain extent to turn into ice. When you push circumstances to an extreme, you just cannot expect something to unconditionally stay in form forever. That is the lie of literacy ideology – everything is defined by meanings that are fixed in stone.

There are times in my life where I wait for that limit to show itself. I wonder if I keep going like this every day, will I develop extraordinary time management skills or will I quit? Or am I just being a whinge as this is nowhere close the limit?

I think, therefore reality!

I think therefore I am. – Renee Descartes

A recent study has found reality to be a product of our own creation. Here is the evidence I have came to grasp. Light hits the eye as it sends neuron signals to the brain. The brain processes the data, and then sends the interpreted neuron signals back to the eye as visual information. Latest discovery is that there a significant increase in the neuron signals that the brain sends back to the eye.

If our brain is inserting additional information to reality, how do we distinguish what is real from what is not?

What are the benefits of knowing what is real? Haven’t we made it till now? Perhaps there is no necessity in finding the whole truth; only a dose of reality is all we need to make it through life.

Self actualising

It has been a long day. Here I am once again typing away. One assumption readers can make about my writings is that they are written alone. Another assumption is that they are written in private. They are conceived from a personal space from within, while gathered from the experiences from the external world. It is simply another form of mediation.

In the past, I have made numerous attempts to answer why I have chosen to consume in this act from time to time. The conclusions I have came to were merely to produce and confirm history, because writing gave the past a solid form. It reassures me that my experiences were real, and helps me to make sense of the world. But at the same time, it abstracts the incessancy of life experience into chapters and – just like Fox News – it sensationalises the experience into a story. Bits were lost and bits were assumed to make the linkages. What is on the surface of the page is merely the problem, but more importantly a reconstruction of the truth has been reinforced to the memory.

Where now, does it leave our true human instincts? Where now, does it leave our native intuitions? To what accuracy do they stand? Feels like the western media have been eating us alive down to our inner cores. Nevertheless, everything has two sides. On one hand convention is distinguished from nature. On the hand, convention is a part of nature as nature results it, absorbs it, and rectifies it.

I now ask myself once again: what is it that is keeping me here?

Scientist explains with chemicals. In intense states of emotions such as child birth, near death, deep meditation, prays, extreme sports and passionate sex, the pineal gland from the brain releases what is called DMT. It seems to only appear when we truly let go of ourselves to the activity. The raw nature of the scenario gives us a sort of closeness to life.

I guess the activities that bring us to the state are not limited to the activities described above. Music lovers bare their soul to the creation of music, while painters let go of all else in the creation of their art. For me, I find my most raw moments in writing.

It is the bond that keeps us there

The thing about a pack of stray dogs, a gang of thefts, or a flock of birds is that they all travel in groups. Whether or not there is a leader, they share a bond. It is that social norm that gives us a sense of belonging in whatever we do. We feel righteous through conforming. There is an order and responsibility that we put forward, yet we feel less responsible in a sense. It is something about the greater whole that draws us to a neutral ground. It feels comfortable.

In life if you don’t find your pack or seek out to one, you always let go at the mercy of an event, because you never committed. There always was a double standard. People forgive themselves way too easily. People give up on rational goals for emotional deeds way too easily. Some things we just can’t do for ourselves alone.

Maintain our existence

Really? Is love really all that emotion orientated as we thought? Do we have no control at all what so ever?

During my year 12 exam the question has never really occurred to me directly, or should I say personally, intimately. But as time goes by, it seems that maybe there is some form of control, rationally absurd sort of control. The essay question was on ‘Nineteen eighty-four,’ about the love which was demonstrated. Did it suddenly occur to me, or was that the most convenient answer at the time, that the so called love between Winston and Julia was completely a choice of will. They were able to love and hate which ever is needed the most in the circumstance of the time. Coming to think about it again, have they been that dehumanised?
Is dehumanisation possible? Taking the life out of a person by building up on the ideas of oppression and suppression, can we squeeze the human-ness out of a person? What is human-ness? What makes a person a person? What set him apart from a living corpse or machine? Could it be his commitment to life? His will to act? His sense control has over how the world sees him? Now, is it a bit conceited to state it down like this? Would it be this sense of dignity that holds strength within him? Do some human make better human than others? Is morality part of human responsibility, or is that merely social perception to how we should be? [My friend, let me ask you how human are you?]

In seeking that special someone, we create boundaries for ourselves, and we always choose within our boundaries. We only ever take what is within these borderlines into consideration. With each failure we meet, every time we feel a lack of choice that we have been bounded too tight, we open up our selection by just a little more. [Is this cause and effect?] Baby, there always is a choice. Can I handle this; is he too good for me; are we too different? We choose to let go, we choose to hold on. We choose by asking: are they good for us? [That is human-ness (in accordance to morality). The human-ness mentioned above is in accordance with life/ death/ soul.]

Charles Darwin makes the point that life strives for existence. He implies that we all want to live. Sure we all agree to some extend, but for some of us we are here because we are already here. [In philosophy an argument is valid when it is logical, when all premises lead to the conclusion. When an argument is sound it means it is logical and premises are true, unquestionable.] It was also claimed that individual survival is advantaged by the survival of a group of the same or similar species as it gives an individual more access over other forms of life. If life strives for survival, is it valid to say people strive for a partner of strength (human-ness)? I might not agree with the premise, but I certainly do agree with the argument. When we think about it, don’t we choose the ones who are full of will, committed to life, and unafraid to consequent the actions of others? Maybe to maintain existence is born into each one of us. Maybe that is what life is.