The Chiasmus: Truth

They say honesty is the best policy, and that the truth will set you free and all of these other axioms and adages about truth, but what I’ve learned and realized is that these platitudes aren’t the core to live by. According to these items, truth wins over all, but is that really true now? Honest is one of the hardest things to be, and a difficult thing it is to tell the truth. Generally speaking, when one completes a task of such caliber the would usually feel accomplished and I would even go as far as to say relieved, but that is not the case with truth. It seems that the beforehand pressure of truth is equivalent to the afterwards affect in almost all situations.

Before the truth is told, the fear of what MIGHT happen and the unknown exist upon the person, but then, when the truth is told, that unknown no longer is a weighing idea, its a tangible force now in your life.  A real catch 22 it is. Therefore, it seems not that what you don’t know can’t hurt you, but rather the fact that what you DO know can and will hurt you. Naturally, a facade here and a lie there really doesn’t seem like such a bad idea seeing that it can land you in the same place that this noble-truth can. Thus is the chiasmus of truth. A few years ago I scripted an article on truth and at first it didn’t make sense and I planned to scrap it, but now it all makes perfect sense.

The Chiasmus: Truth

For what it’s worth to be myself, the pay is scarce and low. For what it’s worth to be me myself I live never more. For what it’s worth to speak aloud, no one shall ever know. These thoughts I keep deep inside hide what in to take pride. Loving is for the weak. And trust for the un-trustable. Salvation for the destitute and redemption for the lost. Grant true power unto me and sin I will no more. Find a place to rest my head and soon you’ll see what’s to befall. Host the glamour that can be brought. Through things not as idle as these. Take me to a place of uncertainty to which I will never fail. Value your own ignorance as you could hate the inevitable truth. Discover what is true but trust not in it. For trust lets down your guard and welcomes in the shroud. That covers your heart and fills it with lies. Pray that the truth is truth and nothing turns to blue.  If lies are what you wish trust in, then what is true. Lies are only the truth of another sort, just as real as what is real. Live a lie, become a lie. Live the truth, Become the truth. Nothing is different as you see only the same of another sort. Heed my warning, disobey, from either you decide you not be able to change what you chose. Only to the fact to end up wondering what could’ve happened if you had changed you mind. The equal results do you receive and that the facts aren’t really facts. Believing the facts is material sight which will eventually wear away, if the facts of today where to disappear then tomorrow where would you be? If not in the same place as the next, you would live your life in confusion. If in the same place would you not still be in your existing ignorance. Ignorance is the facts that have disappeared and of what is not promised. Faith is a one track mind of what you cannot change. If thereof you cannot change it, can it not change itself? Yes, with faith in something you believe blindly, only of what you hope instead of the possibilities. Nothing more, nothing less; the very thing you have this faith in could invert, but would you stop believing? No, your faith is just as an ignorant doubt that what you believe in is constant. Either with faith or the ignorance of to come, now, are you not both on equal terms?  Judgment is the conceited form of hate. Hate is that which is full of evil and is accepting only to itself. It flares the soul to disagree with its destiny. For with judgment it places burdens on others as seen fit by the judge. It accepts its own thoughts and repeals that of all else. The judge is the king and the contester his suspect, with the power to do as he pleases. Then, if not in the face of judgment are you then in the face of hate? Surely, the judgment of one is the hate of another. The hate of one is the judgment of another. For the two are partners in crime and are in total agreement, breaking the creed in which they keep. A creed with another is but a lie. A creed with another is but an act of faith. Either way it is looked upon doubt is the result. Faith cannot be proven and a lie broken.  There underneath a lie is another lie. Lies can never form the truth, but the truth can always form lies. Is so a person’s faith is their truth, can it not then be just another lie? If faith can be justified by ones belief, then so simply can a lie be justified as faith? If faith to you again is the truth, does that then make the lie true? If faith is true, the answer is yes, if faith is but a lie, then faith is impudent is useless.

What do you believe in and how do you know it’s true? You are blind in spirit and soul, nothing is true unless you believe it is, and nothing is false unless you believe it is. So then does that not make truth the same as a lie?

(ANSWER)Living life with belief of certainty is just as uncertain as accepting uncertainty.  Nothing can truly be proven or disproven. The judge is you.

 

More Often Than Not

Obviously I really haven’t had the chance to update my press lately so the next few days/posts actually are on backlog so I’m going to see exactly how much of this backlog I can clear within the next couple of hours.

Okay, continuing on, I first would like to give some background on the reasoning of this post so that you can correlate it with previous and following posts. There are just several more days until the fabulous school year commences and as you all have probably experienced the drama that a high school environment can offer. And if you don’t know what it is that I’m talking about you’re probably too young and shouldn’t be reading this in the first place. But high school drama isn’t the topic at hand tonight– I’ll make a future post about what I hope to see this year– but for now, this is the cause.

Here I feel necessary to go a little more in depth with the Triad Theory of Right and Wrong (and if you have no clue what that is it’s in one of my earlier posts) which will become incredibly handy seeing that I will have quite a few topics to discuss with profundity.

So, if you don’t know what the Triad Theory is you can either stop right now and go get a background in it all or you can try and get through it.

Now that the little “disclaimer” is out the way this is the key message to understand out of this whole thing: the Triad is purely conjecture A, and B, will very very rarely express blatantly that something is right and wrong.

If you remember this Triad analysis supports majorly — however not exclusively — the age old idea of grey areas. Also if you remember how those “grey areas ” are created and if you read the title of this,  you might get a heads up on what’s coming next.

So as a recap, the conjecture relies on the judgements on topics from three viewpoints, religious, scientific and social. And if you remember very rarely do all three of those perspectives align and agree with each other thereof creating the grey area by either two perspectives being pro-situation and the last being anti-situation and vice-versa. This is what happens most of the time in the theoretical process. This process in fact is the basis for the whole setup for the relevance of the grey area. Do recall that this theory is a philosophical adage as opposed to a reference book of DOs and DON’Ts. In lieu of that, it hardly will spill out that something is right or wrong (however in certain cases it does) but the whole idea behind the principle is to suggest that right and wrong are subjective and create argument to at least qualify all sides of a debatable topic. Understanding its purpose one mustn’t forsake this though, even if it doesn’t word for word, verbatim say “This is wrong” and “That over there is right” it will (of course qualify and argue both sides–as it is supposed to) line up the facts in the accord of ‘sometimes’.

Now exactly what does that mean? Well, it simply means this. For example, lets use TOPIC X (which is a basic debatable topic that follows average course to the principle.) Religion says TOPIC X is wrong, Society accepts TOPIC X and science says TOPIC X is a-okay. Hold that thought. now for TOPIC Y (same as above explanation of X) Religion says its wrong, society says its wrong, but science has some evidence that it is medically affected etc.

Now in both cases of X and Y the Triad doesn’t all align, but since they are typical scenarios TWO out of the three agree. In the case of X two agree that X is okay, and in the case of Y two agree that it is not. Then what does that tell you if it’s not spelled out plain black or white?

This is what it tells you. I simply states that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, Topic X is not a real problem and that in MOST CASES Topic Y is wrong and not acceptable.

So you see, the Triad doesn’t nail any one topic to a cross of wrongness or righteousness, but it will give you an idea and give you a little bias as to which side of the fence you want to be on. For it gives you not only the debatable room, for those who are comfortable enough to argue but it also supplies insight for those who are not and gives them a safety-net so to speak on issues. In actuality therefore, this theory doesn’t contradict itself as most it simply follows its own rule and by that I mean that it makes itself — the Triad– a grey, debatable topic.

Hopefully, that roundabout explanation kept your attention and  wasn’t too confusing, but if it was reread it or shoot me an email or comment below and I’ll attempt to clarify any “grey areas” (haha poor joke on my end). But other than that if you intend to continue keeping up with One Million In One — which I hope and pray that you do— it is dire to understand this in order to fully know the arguments made, recognize plausible bias, acquired bias and all of the other little tidbits that tag along with debating world problems.

Without more ado, that is all thanks for reading! LIKE COMMENT, JOIN THE FB PAGE {in the side bar}

 

To Love or not to Love. That is the Question

 

It is the first day of August, and slowly as I am both excited and dreading the return to school in a couple of weeks, It has crossed my mind a specific topic we talked about last school year, and it really applies to the whole conjecture I’ve been putting together. In English class we read an essay Tolerance by E.M. Forster and pretty much it was speaking of how the world’s only hope to move forward is to tolerate and not try to do the impossible and  love. I agree on the foundation of the statements but it didn’t ever move past that point and consider how tolerance would really helped the situation as opposed to dwelling on how love could never work.

So, when you think about it the word “tolerance” you pretty much know it means to put up with or the endure. But look at the word “love” think about what love really is as in a definition. We all know what acts of love are and what love feels like but definition wise what is real love. I think it’s safe to put it in these terms–my 1302 History Professor made the analogy, except with the word “charisma”– love is like porn. You can’t define all it constitutes, but you know it when you see it. Now that’s just a tiny little stretch and this is probably why. For many years I believe people have been throwing that word “Love” around carelessly and idly. And in 2011 you hear it everywhere. ‘I love you’ and then someone goes and cheats on the other and all of a sudden that’s an unforgivable act! What happened to that “love”! Nowadays it’s like promises too… ‘I promise! I promise’ and then you end up being disappointed. So before I argue Tolerance vs. Love  I feel it necessary to make my best bet in compiling what Love is. (Now I was going to use excerpts but I felt it’d be better to let it all sink in.) Before you start the following is set up differently. It contradicts itself by describing something that it says is “indescribable” so it’s like one of those “Never say never” scenarios. The essay i wrote about a year or so ago and is called Love Is.

 

Love, the question of all man’s existence: the indescribable thing that no one knows what it is. Why does one love? How does one love? If there is in this modern-day crisis such a thing, what the hell is it? Can it be found if sought out by the best of excursions? Can it be unearthed by a woman’s affection? Or is it a feeling of a moment that is result of a benevolent deed?

 In all these things it is unknown to any man unknown to any woman; unfelt by any human and unfathomable by any mind. It cannot be labeled for it is not a thing [although every connotation of reference defines it as such] that is tangible or perceptible. Nothing upon this given  earth is accurately analyzed so therefore how is it even quite possible to apply ones inhibitions to something that cannot even be identified, classified, or neatly distributed? There are many philosophies and cynicism to arrive in the ballpark of what this “existence” is. There are ideas that state that love is a feeling that comes by the affection of others. There are philosophies that relate love to the inhibitions of the God-given soul, and even spew that love doesn’t even exist –the thoughts that of a cynic­–however, nobody has yet to be able to answer the questions “Why” and “how” genuinely without referring to it as some sort of reaction to human libido. Those references demonstrate shallow thought and are more describing sexual attraction than that of a “pure love” that may or may not(yet according to them, does) exist.

Now as seen from all religious aspects and the zany idea of billion upon billions of people that populate the planet Earth, love, exist whether we as stubborn individuals like to accept it or not. It is something, rather tangible or not. It is something rather visible or not. It is something and what exactly is that something?

Love, is nothing that is tangible, it is none of these things yet it is all of these things. It is nothing. It is something. It exists to that exists it is unsearchable, unfathomable, indescribable. Love…love…love exist from no man. Love exists from no woman. God is Love, and love is given not taken, not abused. Love is not a kiss in the rain. Love is not a word to name ones feelings. Love is forgiving after he/she has hurt you over and over and you do not know why. Love is accepting the pain and torture you receive. Love is keeping that person in your thought ever hour upon minute upon second of each day. Love is not saying it, love is not doing, not feeling. Love is ‘loving’. It is nothing that can be described as “something”. It is something that is obtained by nothing. Love is no one but God, but love is given to us as a precious gift in which we as a whole afflict. So I tell you the truth, do not feel, do not lie. Do not search; do not abide by the creed which is mandated by your accustomed mind. Love as love is planted in your heart, do not force it; do not wonder. It will come to you if you take a gamble, and believe in love’s purity and wholesomeness.

Love is a binding death in the abyss of ever. Never to be lost, never to be scorned, never to be forgotten, but always…”is”.

After that I genuinely hope that it makes sense somewhat on the operation of love so lets go from there.

Love vs. Tolerance:

In reference to the One Million in One goal, tolerance certainly seems like it is plenty. All we have to do is tolerate people to work with them for a little while to get what we want, right? Right and Wrong, tolerating people would mean that you are doing it because you feel you’re obliged to rather than having the goodwill to do it. Tolerating means you’re resentful still to the person however are using a cheery façade. And tolerance has the next flaw. If  I tolerate you but you don’t tolerate me where are we going to get? For if I am solely tolerating what do I have to lose if I completely say “Screw you”and move on? Tolerance is of human selfishness and human accord for the most part and you can see the anomalies with it.

Love on the other hand you don’t help–per se a person– because you feel you HAVE to rather do so out of the sincerity and compassion that rests in our hearts. With love, if the other doesn’t love you back, you won’t fail them because acts of love are forgiveness, patience, and even tolerance to some extent.

I know I know there are billions and billions of people in the world and you’re not going to like everyone and that’s natural, it’s human. (that’s why it’s a million in one  not a billion in one (JUST KIDDING =] ) But hate and detest won’t do anything but make things worse and cause problems because everyone is not on the same page in the world. At least not yet. But I strongly believe it can happen though. So before you click the little red X in the right hand corner, think about which you are. Do you tolerate people or do you love them. If you know what both things are work to teach yourself what you have just read. It’s just a philosophy but try it out! Lastly, to achieve the One million in 1 goal we need both love and tolerance. Tolerate the person’s actions towards you, but love the person, ’cause we’re all the same on the inside right! Race, sex, orientation, religion… we are all human beings and in this together. So let’s act like it! T for Teamwork L for Life!

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.

-MLK Jr.

(LIKE COMMENT RATE!)

 

Sunday Morning Thoughts

Just an fyi before reading this this is completely random especially at 8:22am but it I hope is going to make sense. I find the whole theory of church to be baffling. Wake up on the start of every week get all fancy to go sit for an hour and a half. Don’t get me wrong looking nice and carrying out your religious rituals is perfectly fine and I have no problem with anyone believing the way they do. I myself am a Christian but not too much a fan of “the church” and all its policies. So which brings me to my point.

It strikes me odd the messages in which one may hear his/her own pastor say or what one may hear from TV preachers. Two major things in which I personally find bad in church message’s: 1) the Bible is a finite composition there is only so much you can talk about before you start to concede points or contradict them. 2) it was written about a thousand years ago. It was a different time and therefore can’t always be taken literally or always applied to modern day directly.

Like for instance this morning I happened to be listening to popular Joel Osteen and he was discussing that people are made intentionally as they are by God but here’s where the contradiction plays in. In Lady Gaga’s song Born this Way she practically says the same thing but religious people seem to say that she’s being blasphemous and just supporting the gays which brings me to my next point, the concessions and time periods. The number one thing that people want to say when they come across people who are gay is they say that they’re going to hell and are ungodly. Now it says some small note to the topic in the Bible but it also says — or at least customary in the laws of Biblical culture– that men are to be religious leaders, but there are plenty of women who lead churches and people are perfectly fine with that and when women are on their period for example you don’t see them staying away and not touching anything and washing whatever they do and one more example would be the issue of divorce. Where once it was unacceptable now thousands of pastors and church people are. And considering this it is only fair to say that people pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible anyway. But as times change isn’t it also fair to say that certain specifics in policies do also to some extent.

This is going further and deeper than I intended so I’ll wrap it up and go on in another post. Every religious leader leads and Lady GaGa leads but to follow either one to indefinite extremes is just kind of crazy and stupid just like saying all gays are going to hell, all Germans are Nazis or all terrorists are Muslim. Not all Muslims are terrorists not all gays are going to hell and not all Germans are Nazis. So just be sensible in what and how you believe.

Tell me what you think of my Sunday morning thoughts. Like on FB