Stadt VIII (Halle) by Peter Gric (1992)







frus
Click on my picture to read my profile.


   

<< April 2006 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01
02 03 04 05 06 07 08
09 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30

Gaymunicated Links:

Project Petaling Street

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:



rss feed



Friday, April 14, 2006
Beyond the form

Morning scenario:
You wake up from bed, your eyes open, you start to hear things, you smelt the air, you felt your blanket sheets and you thought "Oh god... what's the time now?". Then you start to taste something in your mouth,  you're getting hungry and you want to eat breakfast.

In that whole paragraph, its all your six senses flexing their muscles every morning. (or afternoon if you wake up late). They receive information from reality and interpret it for you to live. This is the world laid for you. With your mind primarily being the assistant in decision-making. And what kind of decisions?  It first defines on whats logical to be done. And with logic, comes sense. How do we know sense? it is about whats right and wrong. And who taught us what's right and wrong?  The world.

Interesting. The world teaches us,  and we use the information back to shape the world. A very nice balance in that. This is generally what we do in everyday life. Lets take a look at the scenario when we head to bed.

Night scenario:
You jump on to bed. You lie down, pull up your blankets, adjust your head nicely on the pillow and close your eyes. Then you see this black blank screen. But you're not really seeing it,  instead you're seeing through it with your imaginations. You start to reflect back on your day, imagining things through your head. You go on until you felt more tired, and the things you imagine now becomes slightly unlogical. And suddenly, you felt asleep without realising it. And you are now officially switched off from the real world.
 
Now that all your 6 senses are off, your subconscious mind takes over. You're not conscious but your heart is still beating and your lungs still breathing/snoring. In your head, you are dreaming. You see all sorts all of weird things in your dreams,  but you don't know what exactly are they,  yet you just somehow knew what they mean.  You're living in a different world in that dream. It is YOUR world.



And looking back at it all,  they say that nature can sometimes be unfair. But yet they always say it is balanced.  If we humans and animals are made up of nature,  I guess it is ALRIGHT to be unfair.  Since, were not perfect anyway.  And because we are made up that way, we are naturally going to be unfair to anyone else out there.

Lets take animals for example. A penguin mummy has recently gave birth to a baby penguin. As the baby grows older, it went out to play somewhere. Suddenly, unknowingly naive to the world outside,  a predator ambushes it and kills it. The predator then eats the baby penguin,  and to the mummy penguin, she was shocked and angry, but it was too late to do anything to save it.

Now lets compare it with human example. A mummy recently gave birth to a boy. As the boy grew up and became a rich man, he went out to the bank one day. Suddenly, unknowingly unexperienced to the world outside,  a robber stabs him from the back and takes away his money. And to the boy's mum, she was shocked and angry,  BUT the robber was caught and sentenced to death.

The difference here is, humans define what is right and wrong. And, it is NOT WRONG to think that way.  BUT this mentality has gone to an over-rated extent until to this day, that people failed to see through this form,  the essence and reasoning to this form.

Was it wrong for the predator to kill the baby penguin and eat it? No. the predator needs to survive. Same goes for the robber.  It's so unfair, yet so natural, so balanced.  What is right and wrong then? Isnt it supposedly to form an order so things wouldnt go chaotic? but yet it still ends up chaotic.

People who follow by the rules of whats right and whats wrong,  live by the pressure of following it out and out. They have to make a stand of what they say, or otherwise they would be called a HYPOCRITE. Hypocrisy is "wrong", because people hate unfairness, unstability, such and such. But the world was already unfair in the first place. So, would being a hypocrite be wrong then?

A lot of human who grow up saying they wouldnt become a hypocrite, ended up being one, and always at least once in their lifetime. I myself had many many times, and I've to say, I ENJOY it.  Simply because I feel most natural. Don't be surprised if any theories or philosophies I believe now, would be discarded by myself several years later. Perhaps I would even suddenly say that I hate being a hypocrite several years later. What a hypocrite I am.

I don't find hypocrisy a bad thing. In fact, I never even think of what's right or what's wrong anymore. I just think about what are the causes and effects instead. If say, a guy murders another guy, I would just say that the killer was caused by this and that,  which resulted in him killing the guy. But I never said it was bad. It was thinking based only on cause and effect.

So what do I think about hypocrisy then? I think hypocrisy is an APPROACH that you take understand the middle line between the 2 SIDES in life. The Yin and Yang. The good and bad. The man and woman. The positive and negative.  The high and low. so on and so forth.  A hypocrite, stays on one side at one time,  then suddenly switches to another side at another time, but he never stays there. He keeps moving, never staying.

That movement, is like how energy flows. An electrical energy suddenly switches into heat and light energy, then disperses into another form of energy.  It flows through all the matters in the life, but it can never get destroyed. If you try to keep an energy from not moving around, it will develop even greater and explode.  That's like what happens anyway to someone who has repressed so much feelings inside as well.  But then,  they keep blaming each other, saying thats wrong and shit and then war happens after that.  Well, its NOT wrong to have war. It's just cause and effect as again. Action and reaction.

Einstein is simply brilliant.


Posted at 05:30 pm by frus

bodicea
May 1, 2006   03:51 PM PDT
 
I meant that I support that definition of deviance but I don't support it being justified.

Sorry for the ambiguous statement.

:)
bodicea
May 1, 2006   03:47 PM PDT
 
Frus + Kim: Just one sentence. Like my very first response to this post. And also, my blog = "What's your definition of ethics?" Keep in mind that in today's society, might makes right. In other words, the powerful ones are the ones who create the laws, may they be right or wrong.

Though I quite support the notion that being unfair is wrong, again, what makes "unfair" unfair?

According to Gottfredson & Hirschi, deviance, which is wrong, is defined by this statement: "An act of force/fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest."

If that's the definition of "unfair", it has my fullest support.

--

It's quite impossible to compare humans to animals because we have the rationale to deliberate yet animals don't. They need to kill to survive. We don't have to make war to survive.
Frus
April 20, 2006   01:34 AM PDT
 
Sorry forgotten to put my name
Name
April 20, 2006   01:33 AM PDT
 
kim: erm, animals do kill their own species. And it's not about food, but more about territorial instincts.
But you gave a very important aspect about comparisons between human beings and animals that is, we can think whats right & wrong. Though humans were the first living beings who set the rules. It is all good by creating an order, so that things wouldnt go chaotic. But even orderly systems have flaws in them which might turn out even more chaotic than being in chaos itself.

Say, a robber robs someone. Immediately the fault would be put on the robber. But what could have caused the robber to rob someone? Poverty? Government's fault then? Surely the robber would have brains to do whats right, but who could have been unfair to him in the first place. It's all like a chain reaction.
KiM
April 19, 2006   10:33 PM PDT
 
First of all, bush isnt a hypocrite, just a stupid redneck texan looking for an excuse to exercise the power of being president (a post of which, many will point out, he acquired through unfair and dishonest means) to the full extent, ie killing hundreds of innocents in the name of 'protecting our freedom' bla bla bla, but thats a whole other story together.

Ahem.

That having been said, it is not alright to be unfair. By recognising that we are not perfect, it is admitting that there is room for improvement and as humans, we should try to achieve that to the best of our abilities because this ability to think and reason, and then acting upon our best judgements and moralities is what seperates us from animals.

The predator killing the baby penguin is different from a robber robbing another guy, because while the predators are of a different species from its prey, humans are all the same - humans, yet we still conciously harm each other, even though we have a choice of not having to. It is not in the natural animal instinct to prey on others of their own species for their survival, yet we humans still do it anyway for our own selfish wants and needs, and just how can that be justified...?

And, as a responsible human being, you have to put all these abilities of thought and morality to use, and this will tell you that war is, indeed, bloody wrong.
Frus
April 17, 2006   10:24 PM PDT
 
hxian: heh, like bodicea said in her blog post, thinking too much is not good.

bodicea: yeap. totally agree with what you said in ur blogpost. EVERYONE please do go to her blog and read that!
bodicea
April 17, 2006   12:04 AM PDT
 
Oh crap. That didn't work here.

NEVERMIND.

For the conclusion, click on my name for now.
bodicea
April 17, 2006   12:03 AM PDT
 
Okay, readers. I've just chatted with Frus on MSN. Here's <a href="http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=20848040&blogID=110508689&Mytoken=FB117379-63FE-CEE8-162C13FA2621190516210258">our end of the saga</a>.
hxian
April 16, 2006   04:08 PM PDT
 
interesting.

the way i see it, there's nothing wrong about switching or changing perceptions. people can make a stand for something that is believed to be correct and appropriate for that time. this goes without saying for any circumstances, even political situations. the same cannot always be followed through for long, if it is longer appropriate.

and hahahaha. wtf dude. was reading and getting all bleh about hypocrisy till i read bodecia's and your last comment.
bodicea
April 16, 2006   03:59 PM PDT
 
Frus: I still think you got me wrong. Yes, if things are meant to happen, let it be. So Bush decided to have a war in Iraq. Let him be. It's his decision. But many people die, and he lacked evidence to back his conviction up, so he was deemed "wrong". Yet, I don't think he's a hypocrite, because, he still stands by what he said he believed in. He did not go like "I thought there were WMD in Iraq, really, but I guess my brilliant facade of just wanting to manipulate their oil resevoir has been poke through." That opinion is what I feel has been based on presumptions by critics.

I shall rephrase my point: Hypocrisy happens when you don't do what you say, not because it was due to external influence, but due to your own selfishness.

Would that help?

P.S. It doesn't matter if you're a fan of terminologies or not. But it's advisable that before you start talking about a concept, do properly establish its premise, so to avoid future contradictions and misunderstandings among readers. :)
Frus
April 16, 2006   03:46 PM PDT
 
bodicea: Thanks for properly defining the term hypocrisy. I'm not a fan of terminologies =P.
Paralysedchicken echoed my points more accurately, she probably gave a better term for what i meant. So, sorry if I communicated my points across wrongly. (Communication is gay man)

About your "Trust" point, deals with the issue of seeking approvals. But I see your point more in the context of a political leader, whereby people can only trust him if he stands by in what he believes. That is all right and fine. But the context of your perception isnt the context of what my perception is. Because I see things now not based on right and wrong. Its more like cause and effect. And to apply that perception to the political leader issue, it would be like..
Cause: Political leader has to stand for what he believes in.
Effect: The people trusts him more.
But theres no meaning behind it. It doesnt matter if his actions were wrong or right. Doesn't matter how wrong or right is, there are consequences/reactions to his actions. And so be it that way. Its just like how nature works, perfect. If a war happens and lots of people die, so be it. Its meant to happen.
bodicea
April 16, 2006   03:31 PM PDT
 
Frus: I'm afraid that I've been misunderstood, or perhaps, my response became ambiguous.

Firstly, let me clarify what I had meant by my earlier response. When I said "your", I meant the global readers in general. "your" goes with the likes of "our", in referrence to another's point of view.

paralyzed_chicken: The reason why I dislike hypocrisy so much, is not because it is wrong or right. It's more like because you--okay, "we"--do not fulfil what we preach. It doesn't matter if we change our perception and views in due time or not, but shouldn't we follow through what we preach? If we don't, how is Trust applicable in this world?

Pardon me if I seem pedantic, but if you would check dictionaries, they would provide you denotational definitions of hypocrisy which would support what I'm trying to explain here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy

One of the definitions of hypocrisy:

hy·poc·ri·sy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

--

Notice that they do not mention about the influence of time whatsoever.

With that, I still say that hypocrisy shouldn't be intentionally practised.
Frus
April 15, 2006   08:46 PM PDT
 
chicken: hey there, thanks for correcting the accuracy of the definition of what i meant by hypocrisy. great insight there.
paralysed_chicken
April 15, 2006   08:36 PM PDT
 
Hypocrisy in this age, is labeled upon someone only when it becomes apparent in society’s eyes for someone to judge it so. And that again, is calibrated by society’s views, the way we’ve shaped the world, for it to conform to the most suitable veneer. The mumbo jumbo surrounding hypocrisy is highly misguided. Being in this world, it is ultimately natural to change and progress in our perception, convictions and beliefs from time to time as we grow. So, is it hypocrisy if I suddenly choose not to believe in something which I believed in 10 years ago? Is hypocrisy an ally of time and change? Hypocrisy is only if I believe in something at that moment, but do not uphold it and practice something else instead. The subject of hypocrisy is a variable subjected to change, affected by the constants of time as well as period, which have the ability to alter convictions, beliefs, perception through experience. At the end of the day, what is hypocrisy anyway?

“A hypocrite stays on one side at one time, then suddenly switches to another side at another time, but he never stays there. He keeps moving, never staying”
In that case, if I may say so myself, hypocrisy is one heck of a progressive dude.
Frus
April 14, 2006   08:45 PM PDT
 
bodicea: You missed my point. I wasnt even thinking about ethics. If a hypocrite just so happens to cause great suffering to a lot of people, so be it. Never thought it was a bad thing neither a good thing.
bodicea
April 14, 2006   06:33 PM PDT
 
So if the action of a hypocrite causes great suffering to society in general, his/her action is justified?

Hypocrisy is based on your definition of ethics. That's all I have to say.
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments




Previous Entry Home Next Entry