When it all comes down

To no one in particular:
I guess when it all comes down, we really are who we pretend to be. If our identity is based solely on perception, then I could put on a smile and never again speak of anything but bright lights and champagne-- and that would be who I am to everyone surrounding.

We have infinite identities, we really do.
There is that person who only speaks of bright lights and frivolity-- or better yet, who just doesn't even speak-- who others pass off as vain, or boring, or shallow
There is the person they become when relaxing with the the ones who were there before all bets were called off
There is the person who sits awkwardly at a party, never knowing what to say or if anything should be said
There is the person whose heart is still sore from mild tragedy, who must smile because they were the one who threw the party in the first place
There is the person who sits on the floor of the living room in the middle of the night, holding an attempted suicide in their arms and calling for an ambulence
And even then, there is the person whose exterior is calm and collected, and there is the person who is screaming and frantic inside
There is the person who goes home each night and writes in their journal ideas about the nature of existence, about the impossibility of love to exist unconditionally, about identity and knowledge and quantum physics and everything that means something to them but never seems to mean anything else. It's just a hobby anyway, right?

Life is just a game and, as far as I can tell, there are no real rules and no way to win or lose. So take it as you will and pretend to be whoever you want. Because, like Jude Law says in one of the best existentialistic/nihilistic films ever made, how am I not myself? It doesn't matter how many perceived identities you acquire. Whoever you are presently-- is still who you are.



To one person in particular:
[Thank you for responding when I reached out to you. It means more to me than you'll probably ever learn, and more than I will probably ever be able to tell you. Thank you for your kind words of encouragement, for opening up to me the fact that you can relate to how I feel. And thanks for telling me the things that you wouldn't tell other people, for putting so much trust and faith into me. Your words may well have been my saving grace.]

Identity defines existence, perception defines identity, knowledge determines perception?

If you're not interested in philosophy, epistemology or perceptual psychology, then I suggest you back up and read the next entry, titled "You'll definitely want to read this." Those of you who have as deep a love for knowledge as I do, please read on! Challenge what you read here and formulate arguments. Rebuttals, as always, are eagerly encouraged.

As I was reading Philip K. Dick's novel "A Scanner Darkly" (nope, haven't seen the film), I noticed he used the idea that identity is an illusion to illustrate one of the underlying themes of the book, the nature of existence. This topic has always caught my interest, so I could not help setting the novel down in order to ponder this further.

What defines our existence? Well, our identity does. The idea of existence is, in itself, an axiom. It requires no proof, it is accepted universally. On the same level, however, it cannot effectively be proven nor denied. Identity, however, is also axiomatic-- but nothing can exist without identity. So, there must be two items present in order for existence to exist, because it cannot have identity except in relation to the existence of another's identity. Right?

Existence is implicative of a dichotomous identity-- to be more specific, the inclusive and exclusive identity. Allow me to illustrate: There is a sphere. Outside the sphere, there is a void. The sphere is inclusive, while the void-- which only exists in relation to the sphere-- is exclusive. Therefore the exclusive identity exists only due to the existence of the inclusive identity. False cannot exist without true.

Or something like that. Still following?
...Yeah, me neither.

We covered the theory that something cannot exist without identity. Or, rather, that it exists because it has identity. But what is identity?

I suppose one could say that identity is a concept created by whoever it is that is doing the identifying of the identity. In other words, you are who you are perceived to be. But who you perceive yourself to be will most likely vary from who your neighbor perceives you to be.

Which brings me into the realm of epistemology, which is fun to say and even more fun to study. (Just a warning to the general public, this topic will now take on a very different track from before.) Allow me to begin with another illustration: Someone says to you the word "ball." No specifics, just the concept. To your mind comes a default image of a ball. More than likely, this image is a memory of the particular object which was responsible for the original creation of that concept in your mind, the concept of a ball. Pre-school, your teacher holds up an object, teaching you first what characteristics it has-- round, impenetrable, of a certain size-- then teaching you that these characteristics describe the concept "ball."

If someone were to describe to you a ball with certain specific characteristics, however-- so many inches in diameter, a certain color, a particular weight-- you would [probably] form in your mind an image different from your default image, considering the ball described was a different ball altogether. In this case, although your imagination is creating an image of something you have not actually perceived, it is by the same method as when your mind formed the default image of the ball. Your mind is filling in with bits of data to fit the description.

In order to be able to store these bits of data in the first place, as well as to communicate them later on, we need a standard of value by which to judge. A common language. [Example: we "tag" certain concepts with words so that we do not have to constantly define them when they arise. So, when we see a ball, instead of saying "a round or roundish body, of various sizes and materials, either hollow or solid..." we simply assign it the word "ball.") A standard of value is usually something that is widely accepted, like inches or feet for measurements, etc. So, to reiterate, the expression of a concept requires a common language.

Conceptualization is a key process in our minds-- meaning that our mind is always judging the value of the things we see, and in doing so, looking for similarities by which to recognize these particular perceptions. The search for recognition, as well, as the judgment of value, creates a mental context which is unique to each individual-- basically, it is our Self-- upon which perception and imagination are contingent.

Our imagination serves the purpose of creating the concept to fit the flow of data, while our mental context strives to reflect reality. As a more clear example, when we are imagining something, we are not completely aware of our surroundings, just as when we are completely, acutely aware of our surroundings, we are not tapped into our imagination.

Imagination can also be used as a defense mechanism. If we do not want to confront some unpleasant fact, we mix our imagination into the equation, thus splitting our attention between imagination and reality, and creating a barrier of ignorance. This is detrimental to our mind, because we are merely avoiding the truth.

The opposite, however, is highly beneficial in a number of ways. If we can form the habit of keeping our mind volitionally focused, that is not holding away conceptualization, we end up with more self-confidence and more of a thirst for knowledge. With a constant need for knowledge, our mind is growing and our intellect expanding.

Now that we are on the topic of knowledge, why not discuss the nature of knowledge, itself?

Knowledge can exist on different levels. You can have knowledge that was not experienced, but is merely learned-- a widely accepted truth. But the fact of the matter is that someone, at some point, had to experience that in order for it to become knowledge, so it is not necessarily without experience behind it so much as it is true pertaining to all experience. It can also be knowledge that is simply outside the realm of experience, but I shall get to that in a moment. This kind of knowledge is referred to as a priori. Knowledge that is gained directly through experience is called a posteriori.

There are two different types of judgments our minds make in order to integrate knowledge-- analytical judgments and synthetic judgments. An example of an analytical judgment would be to say "all bodies are extended [have spatial magnitude]." We need not add anything to this particular conception-- the predicate is connected to the subject, both of which exist within the conception itself. On the other hand, a synthetic judgment is one which there are two separate conceptions that are joined together. These types of judgments must stem from experience, or must be mathematical statements (such as a sum of numbers). Physics contains a number of statements that are synthetic. Metaphysics, a much more complex and difficult case, contains synthetic knowledge that can only exist outside the realm of experience. For instance, the statement "the world must have had a beginning." We can conceptualize this, and we know that it is true (because if the world did not begin, it would not currently exist), but we cannot use our own experience to back it up-- because we were not alive to experience the actual beginning of the earth.

This philosophy of speculative reason is called transcendental philosophy-- the knowledge of the manner of perception of an object, as opposed to the knowledge of the object itself.

Lastly (for now, since it's past 2am and I'm becoming quite drowsy), I will stress that there are two main sources of human knowledge-- sense, which pertains to what we were given (ie: instinct), and understanding, which is achieved through thought and analysis.

At this point, I don't even remember where I was headed with this, but it was an amazing journey-- and one that is only beginning. So I invite you all now to formulate rebuttals, and keep an eye out for my next essay as I learn more about the fun subject of epistemology!

mor action, less tears

As my mother led us in saying grace last night before dinner, she asked God to please keep the world at peace. I cringed, and told her later that the world must first be at peace in order to be kept at peace. But I do not think it is God's job to bring the world to nor keep the world at peace. It is only we who can make that difference, and it seems as though we stray farther from this goal by the hour-- that is, if it is still our goal at all.

I find it difficult to believe that we will ever achieve peace in the world when there are still countries which hold public execution. And what might be far worse than that is the fact that we are so calloused to the idea of death-- that we would watch the footage of this execution, for the mere reason that it will be the hottest topic at tonight's party. I do not care how terrible the person is or what awful things they have done-- there is nothing that would compel me to watch another person's execution. I don't approve of the death penalty either, but that is truly a separate subject from the point I am attempting to make.

I think that it is so sad that we as a species have become so cynical and jaded that we no longer believe we can make a change in this world. Do we not realize that we are "the other guy" whose shoulders we keep shifting the blame to? We hear about the topic of global warming and we become overly defensive-- it is not my fault, my one truck doesn't contribute THAT much to the problem, this one individual cannot make any difference by themselves... But the thing is, if every individual changed one aspect of their lifestyle-- use different lightbulbs, begin to recycle, buy an electric car, turn off the lights when you leave the room-- then the world would be a whole lot better off than when everyone was saying it is not their fault. Of course it is our fault! Everything we do contributes in some way, whether positively or negatively. Think of this: If every person in the country gave one single dollar to help a good cause, that would be close to 300,000,000 for that cause-- and each individual would be out only a single dollar. It's the same exact thing. Your one dollar will make a world of difference, but only if you contribute. Your one small lifestyle change will make a huge difference in the issue of global warming, but only if you make a change.

And it goes exactly the same for other issues, as well. If every person wanted to help make a positive change in the world-- let's say every person in America-- again, that would be close to 300,000,000 people working toward the betterment of our little planet.

When I think of the magnitude of this problem, this issue of peace in all of its endless facets, I become so discouraged that I find myself standing on the edge, ready to throw away all of the hope that I once held so fervent. But I will battle through cynicism, and I will do my best to encourage each of you to make a positive change-- because one person can indeed make a very significant difference, especially with the help of their neighbors...

Don't just pray for peace, do something about it.