There are followers of this blog who I have not talked with in a very very long time.
And what's been going on for me? Wishing I wasn't always so gentle.
But then I don't want to be really mad either...ahh. Social interactions are not suited for me I think. Maybe?
I just remembered.
"Imitation is suicide"
I always sort of wondered exactly what it meant. But being such a short phrase, it has a multitude of meanings.
Perhaps if we could pin this quip to an author. To a time. A date. A place. Then we could call it flash fiction, and we could have use it in some English paper. (Arts people, specifically Harvard, I'm talking to you.)
Is it that flattery is suicidal? Or is it that when we imitate, we end up losing who we are?
There are three pieces of work which I'm proud of.
No, scratch that.
Three pieces written by me. One piece by a friend who I trust but my parents don't and about whom I've always wondered if I would ever reach their level. One piece I gave to someone I used to have a crush on and which still exists and I think is quite possibly, quite probably a symbol of our current friendship which I don't want to lose. A multitude of letters which I've kept safe in a box under my desk. And a CD by a good friend who, in a way reminds me of a tsundere.
I know you don't remember what was in the letter which came inside the wrapping for the CD. It doesn't matter. I sort of do. I still treasure it anyway.
I still haven't listened to the songs on it. You know how I am.
What was I going to say..... ah right.
I still don't know who or what I am. But that's ok. There's a sense of comfort in knowing that you don't know something, right?
I mean, lots of people do it... they just have literature to go with it. And very very nice houses. Which don't belong to humans.
Then again, it just makes me curious. And the only way I see of knowing is through other people. You are ultimately judged by your actions.
Remember the story of Alfred Nobel?
It made me chuckle.
And further, people. Da jia. Minna san.[sorry. lol.]
Umm... right.
To deal with a Candid Friend's post:
I make long posts because I have the time to. You don't need to spend that much time on it right?
I suppose maybe, just maybe one day I'll come back and read it.
My high school counsellor, Dr. DeDecker said the same thing. You should separate the action from the person. And she also told me that what people do has a reason behind it, but that reason is not an excuse.
I guess it's more applicable in a given context when we were discussing how to approach and deal with someone you care about who has mild aspergers.
Actions reflect a character when all you have to go by are their actions. I believe that actions have a similar weight to words.
Or is it that words speak the same as actions?
Not in the physical sense, I suppose. But words are binding. Words create and shape a reality.
Anyway, back to the point, I'm glad to be in a profession where I'm not even remotely encouraged to judge the character of the people I deal with. Even if the actions that lead to you meeting them were bad, and thus your idea of them is that they're a bad person; they're still fundamentally human with human needs and desires.
I suppose deep down I'm a nurturist. Maybe I'm too soft.
I only hate about... 3 people. Maybe 4. I know a lot more, if that puts it into perspective.
Anyway, your posts seem pretty short all the time anyway. :o
Hate's pretty strong, yea. It's a strong word because it can change how you feel about someone. You might not have hated them before, but now - you do.
Moving on to Aereas' compendium of consciousness.
[Kinda forced, but still was fun]
Stolen~:
1: A song you like with a colour in the title
Orange
2: A song you like with a number in the title
Aren't there a lot like this? Oh well, can't be helped.
1925 (Jazz Arrange)
Magus Night/Flowering Night Arrange
Knights' nights everywhere!
4: A song that reminds you of someone you would rather forget about
Ten-Faced
This one's almost a no brainer actually.
5: A song that needs to be played LOUD
I don't like my music played that loud though.
But if you insist.
A Sense of Distance
I'm a bit lazy with artists. Sigh.
6: A song that makes you want to dance
Bambous by Caravan Palace
This one's french - not japanese and thus it's easier to transliterate the artist (sorta, lazy excuse)
7: A song to drive to
Beverly Hills Cock
8: A song about drugs or alcohol
Ummm...hmmm.....
I doubt I have one, so I'll move on.
9: A song that makes you happy
Freely Tomorrow
Tough choice this one.... It depends on the day I guess.
Been singing to this one for a while though so why not.
10: A song that makes you sad
Regret Message
11: A song that you never get tired of
Pandashka(!)
Hmmm... as tempting as a good old Deus Ex song is, I'll have to stick with this one.
12: A song from your preteen years
Oh gods let's not go there. Moving on...
13: One of your favorite 80’s songs
80's? What's that?
Can I eat it?
14: A song that you would love played at your wedding
Ermmm...............................
Red mist and red museum(?)
It's got that "final boss" feel, if you know what I mean (?) ;]
15: A song that is a cover by another artist
Oh that's simple.
Necro Deer Rising (:P?) by Liz Triangle
16: One of your favorite classical songs
This is Gallifrey/Vale Decem
17: A song that would sing a duet with on karaoke
I don't know many duet songs but...
Magnet
18: A song from the year that you were born
Moving on - this isn't to my tastes :P
19: A song that makes you think about life
Dream Eating Monochrome Baku
Ehehe. Look at that style. That fashion. Gosh. I'm jealous.
20: A song that has many meanings to you
Matryoshka!
There's a really nice video to go with this version, but it's up to you I guess.
21: A favorite song with a person’s name in the title
Trevor by Savant
Probably posted this before anyway, but here's a reprint.
22: A song that moves you forward
Medic! by Valve Studio Orchestra
I challenge you to not love the song after you've seen the video:
[Ironic note: I don't play the Medic very much.]
23: A song that you think everybody should listen to
KisekiXKokoro [MiracleXHeart/Spirit]
Have fun with this.
I.... I don't have any bands that aren't together from what I'm aware of.
25: A song by an artist no longer living
Dead artists? Doesn't that make them old? :o
ABC by Jackson Five
26: A song that makes you want to fall in love
Ah, it's a Wonderful Cat Life
27: A song that breaks your heart
Songs don't break my heart - people do.
Um...
Crime and Punishment
28: A song by an artist with a voice that you love
Oh gods Lily-an. Yes please. Verymuchso.
Ok, try Two Steps from Hell esque style with this singer.
Messiah by Liz Triangle
And a somewhat relevant title hmm? :)
29: A song that you remember from your childhood
Childhood...
Hot Potato by the Wiggles
30: A song that reminds you of yourself
Oh gods. So many!
Umm... Here, have just two.
Servant of Evil
As much as I hate being called it, I resign myself to my fate and label as "compulsive liar".
I clicked on a few of the links.
It was beautiful.
Clocks reminds me of Aaron Gong. LOL. I don't know why - possibly because I remember him practicing it.
I really liked the Deus Ex remix.
It's gentle. And very nice.
Heya!
I have no idea what that song is like. So educate me. Enlighten me :)
I can't imagine William watching PPuff Girls haha. Oh well, we all have had those moments.
And because I had to take a break and sleep while doing this, there was a reply:
Aereas:
"Firstly, your forgot to attribute the quote to Voltaire"
I didn't forget - I just knew you'd know the quote :)
I'm lazy*
"The sapient question, which ultimately arose out of the biological question; is that of "How can I continue my metaphysical existence beyond death?" or rather this may be rephrased as "How can I be important in life?". "
I maintain that it's irrelevant to be asking that question. It's interesting, for sure, but entirely irrelevant. It's like me asking "How can I convince patient X that this course of treatment which goes against their beliefs entirely is actually worth breaking their faith for?"
The answer of course is that we should not even be thinking about trying to convince them out of their faith.
"Since this is a philosophical debate, I believe that the implicit rules state that there is no need for me to individually explain each and every one of the above relationships and their implications. instead, you can visit Wikipedia for that, here."
There is a level of knowledge implied, yes. Then again, being a Law student, you've got the upperhand :P
And I'm lazy.
"Now, back onto the main stream of thought. I think that both religion and science are solutions humanity has made to answer the sapient question, just with different approaches. In fact it could be argued that all of human existence and civilisation has been devoted to answering this question from literature to the arts, myths, legends, folklore, technology, philosophy and everything else in between. And that all of these solutions lie on an axis-like spectrum of observation-inspiration."
I maintain that science was a way for humanity not to be scared. Of themselves, of the dark, of that lumbering thing over there. That is; it serves as a way to accrue knowledge, is constantly evolving and thus wards off the fear of the unknown.
Religion is different in that which it does stave off fear, it staves off exactly one fear and that is the fear of death. I prefer to work in the present where people don't need to die and this, I view religion as an optional add-on rather than something necessary. It arguably doesn't change over time; maybe some slight tweaking because X,Y,Z says something "revolutionary".
While I hate endings too, religion is like forecasting the ending to a book and ultimately, causing more grief to yourself when you realise your ignorant speculation was in fact, completely wrong.
But then, anyone could be wrong about death. Still, I maintain that religion shouldn't hold the level of power that it does.
"Ultimately, I would have to disagree with you in that religion is part of an innate human need for a solution to the sapient question which will never be extinguished and is neither 'wrong' or 'right' just different. The true underpinning here lies on how the perceiver chooses to view his/her world, either through a more empirical viewpoint or inspirational viewpoint, which is where we as individuals come in."
The question will never be extinguished. And while the answer exists, I don't believe it to be entirely relevant.
That's like the "No soap, radio" joke. The "punchline" exists, but is completely irrelevant to the preceeding build up. Furthermore, if we are to look at more popular culture, "the meaning of life".
Again, the answer exists, the question is inextinguishable but they are not related to one another.
Are we getting confused? Religion is a separate entity to the agents that bring it about. Religion can be right or wrong, it is not neither though. It depends on who "wields" (funny word but I can't think of another) religion. I figured morality depends on the society.
"Imagine time as a highway." Everyone knows time is not a highway. It's a big ball of....oh nevermind.
"It is hard for us to think nowadays that the predominant form of government less than a century ago was imperialism and monarchy, which we now view as degenerate and backward. We pride ourselves on the Information Age and the increased abilities we as individuals have access to with massive improvements in communications and electronics technologies in the past few decades alone. But eventually all this will pass sooner or later and part of our human condition is the propensity for us to stick with what we feel safest and familiar with which eventually is interpreted by more future(relatively speaking)-oriented individuals as being "agents of resistance"."
It's not a matter of obsoletism, it is as you mention, a matter of conservatism. It's a social structure yes, but a social structure that was almost entirely born out of one piece of literature. Any theologian rightly, wrongly, biased or no will tell you that the entirety of Western culture was formed from that book. And so will a lot of literary professors (probably cause they pride themselves with that book in their collection).
Time moves along, yes, yes, but the people never change. One form of discrimination is replaced with another - and old discriminations resurface. People lose faith in each other, lose trust in one another because they stick to their conservative ways. They don't negotiate. They don't talk. They don't understand other people.
"However what made Christianity successful also made it inherently conservative since it established an internal organisation and structure through its Church hierarchy."
Yes, it was successful because it set itself up to propagate and remain powerful for millenia. Each generation perpetuating the exact same message as the last generation, which was left up to interpretation.
"In the 11th century, dispute on the interpretation of the Bible led to the event known as the Schism where the Orthodox Churches were founded which promoted a then-more progressive viewpoint with an emphasis on the church incorporated within the nation/state, which was a new concept in that time period with the breakdown of strong empires in the European Dark Ages. And this didn't even happen once too.
Cue the 16th century and the Reformation saw the development of a multitude of Protestant Churches which sought to reinvigorate the radical spirit of Christianity relative to the times with a greater focus on the individual in some Churches along with a shift towards less literal interpretations of the Bible among other changes."
Different interpretations of the same piece of text which lead to a hell of a lot of people dying unnecessarily. If this is a way to answer the sapient question, it's very very efficient. Give them an explanation worth dying for, and then they die young, happy, knowing that their faith will sustain them to an uncertain "afterlife".
"However, it has to be taken into account that although the main organised religions in the world today are conservative it does not mean that they are doomed to disappear. If religions continue their original purpose to provide a solution to the sapient question through their dogmatic teachings whilst continually adapting themselves and taking into account relevant contemporary issues over time then they will prevail. For example, look at Judaism which has survived four millennias due to its adaptability."
I think you slightly misunderstand. It's not that because they are conservative that they are going to disappear. It's because they are conservative that they should disappear. We have reached a stage where religion to me, is like an airbag on a bicycle. Very nice to have, but not entirely necessary. Especially when it interferes with other aspects of life (namely if in the analogy, this airbag prevented the rider from wearing a helmet).
I'm aware of what religion means to a lot of people, and it fills a void which is unfillable, etc. etc. And yet, when I listen to paid "professional" speakers, where is that passion? They couldn't convince me to give them a penny, much less pay attention after 5 minutes of their droning.
And Harvard, this is where I draw the distinction between my weird Preservationist philosophy and Evangelism. The power which I have as a professional is a borrowed power. It is borrowed because I am taking the patient's power away from them, informing them, and pushing that power back to them so that they can decide what they need/want. An Evangelist obtains their power by robbing others of it, and shrouding that power in an air of snobbery. The end is almost the same - that in both relationships "there is an inherent power imbalance".
However, medics have a concept of "informed consent", which in theory, should realign the doctor's perspective with the patient's needs and wants. In the end, although I have my own selfish desires, I resign to disagree from the sidelines when a patient is adamant on refusal or is adamant on their own ideas when I have presented them with the best, current information.
An Evangelist, forgive me if I'm wrong, seems to never give up. Ahaha... reminds me of something my father said about Imhotep from the Mummy series.
"Never sleeps. Never gives up."
 |
| AND WHO ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO BE?! |
And back to Aereas.
"I hope that retorts your argument."
We're probably thinking semi on the same lines, with discrepancies. Not that I mind talking about those silly iffy bits.
"You should, it's interesting.
I personally recommend reading Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra which is nihilism, transhumanism and existentialism all wrapped in a poetic bundle. Also watch de Botton's documentary series Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness. Here.
I found that watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos documentary series, reading Wikipedia articles on random philosophical ideas and just thinking about the world and everything forms the basis of my current worldview."
I should yes, but again, I'm pretty lazy and again, I would prefer to ask people around me what they think so I have a better understanding of the world.
I think I've watched a lot of that. It's really pretty haha. The Cosmos series, I mean.
I'm not entirely looking forward to more of my bioethics lectures. Mostly because the lecturers are not passionate about what they teach. Which draws my ire more than anything else.
" I disagree. Humans are shaped by their respective societies and times (see Herbert Spencer's counterargument to the Great Man Theory) and each successive generation can and always will be better than the last generation in adapting to the times they find themselves in."
Your argument is based on extrapolating Spencer's argument and assuming that every person can become influential, and that every person can be heroic.
I'm assuming that every person is fundamentally the same and able to work their way up or down the morality ladder, yes depending on the society.
"Two sides of the same coin"...
What I'm arguing is that within that same society which arguably, changes very little over time - people can be better than the last generation within that society.
"I prefer to use the word think which implies use of logical reasoning."
I think the word think is pretty strong. But I'll keep it in mind.
"From a scientific point of view, Nazi and later CIA (see Project MKUltra) and Soviet human experimentation were valid."
It is medically and therefore scientifically invalid if it is not morally valid. Strictly speaking, a scientific procedure can never be "correct" or "valid" from any perspective unless it is validated by the society which condones it.
Otherwise, why the heck would I bother with old cadavers, animal testing and stem cell research =="
"2) Yay too
3) This post is.
4) Disagree.
5) Agree.
6) Disagree with rights.
9) In our Information Age context especially, yes. In other contexts, maybe.
10) Thank you. "
10) You're welcome.
On another note, teach me to present ideas XD That way, people won't be confused when I lead them on a string of ideas which are totally connected to me with double backs and loop the loops, but ends up looking like a ball of "stuff" to them.
Harvard:
"If you met a person who had a debilitating illness, who specifically didn't want that illness to be treated - for example a blind man who vehemently wanted to remain blind. Would you treat them anyway under the assumption that their quality of life would be better and they just don't know it?"
I've talked about that slightly before, and I can safely say that although it pains me greatly, I respect their wishes and must resign to their ideas of "health.".
A long long long time ago, (read: Victorian) doctors would decide what is best for the patient. Always. And thus, you would get ridiculous cures because of the privileged position medical professionals have.
Also, my father was talking to me about cadavers, and he asked me why we don't just dig up corpses.
I spluttered.
"Which brings us to another embarrassing problem. Evangelism is not necessarily always an altruistic act. Some people do it because they want to increase church numbers, or because they somehow think that converting people will earn them brownie points in heaven. This is really tragic, and it smuts the implications of proper Evangelism. I guess if you were to go by my analogy, it'd be something along the lines of a doctor who only treated patients who paid his exorbitantly high fee. In the end, sick people are cured and that's never a bad thing. On the other hand, that particular doctor is a terrible person."
A doctor who does their job purely for the monetary reward is not a doctor, but a businessman. It shows in their practice. Not that I can do anything about it, but their quality of care is actually far lower. You just can't get away with that kind of nonsense in this profession. Maybe in other professions.
"I guess what I'm saying is, your idealism is pretty cool. When you graduate, hand me your business card so I can recommend your services to everyone I know."
Lol inb4 paediatric neurosurgeon.
Basically. If you need my services, chances are your future's grim.
"And I wonder if you'd blow a gasket after working for a long time to cure someone only for them to thank Jesus and not you. "
I was thinking about that too. I would just have to ignore them, grumble and move on. And probably talk to someone about it later. There's no point getting angry at a patient, no matter the circumstances. It's probably borderline immoral to be furious with a patient.
Again, power imbalance.
Back to finishing the music list then I'll be hopping off this post.
I think I'm done now.
Hoping to see you all soon.
Also, this is slightly embarrassing, but who exactly is in the picture you drew Aereas? I'm having trouble deciding who's who, not helped by the dinosaur in the bottom right.
