Of Life

If anything could happen, subjected such by quantum states, would it not be preferable to accept leading a happy life than an unhappy one? That is, more to the point, if we hold life experience as subjective (because if it were objective, then we would be all so uniform as nullifying the point of individuality), we can imprint our will to the life we lead, to the courses we take. Doing otherwise would simply contradict some basic facts about metaphysical freedom insinuated throughout human history as individual attributes determinant for one's existence (most notably Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Sartre, to name a few).

Now it is possible to imagine such actions and situation that go above our individual will. True. That point holds to the separation between will of the mind and will of the...well, our physical self. It is perfectly unarguable to decide that we cannot lift a piano. On the other hand, it is completely arguable to confront your boss with trivial language and resign. Don't say you don't have a choice, you can't do it. It is, simply put, the lack of will. And lacking will might as well deprive you of some human defining attributes granting you others in return. Cowardice is a natural feature that shouldn't shame you of possessing. The bad part in such an approach is that negating reality (thus, what you can and cannot do) might be evidence of some pathological issues that you need sorted out. I would recommend suicide, unless you want results deriving from the removal of your frontal lobe. Hell, inland fantasy is quite common these days, take advantage of its care-free environment.

And thus I'm brought circumstantially to another point in this discussion. Homo sapiens evolution vs. natural evolution (I'm derogating the term in order for it to apply to aforementioned species). As we see everywhere in the natural universe plainly outside artificial human mastering, nature favours the most powerful, the gifted, the most beautiful, but as seeing how less is more, only the fit survive. The human universe is by these standards, something quite odd and peculiar to a natural endeavour.

It has come to my attention that in the past few years, genetical diseases, of which most neurological, have become more numerous and have begun to affect a bigger chunk of the world's population. Apologists may argue quite effectively that this is because the increasing population. I'd agree, up to a point. Of course, I haven't exactly done my homework in the sense that I know not the exact numbers. However it is quite obvious that these afflictions are not mere random things and not because of the human population growth. Rather it is because our evolutive course has taken a devolutive path, different from that of nature. Instead of disposing of those unable to take care of themselves, that would never in their life bring any plus to the society they live in or the species as a whole. Quite oppositely, they would waste resources for no reason and live for no purpose other than the feelings of those close to them.

Now I'm exempting from my accusations the old and crippled for they might've done something for society in their time and deserve some sort of reward, as in nature, nothing is created and destroyed, but is perpetual. Even so, clinging for the life of some disabled freak that could never live on his own, would never live up to its human potential and that anywhere else would die because of the practical inability to LIVE, I find it pathetic and a downturn for the human species as a whole, as it allows, within the confines of societal development and mores, to perpetuate genes and behaviours detracting from true evolution. You may think me to be wrong, but think this: if I were as my topic, I wouldn't be here writing, now would I? I would most probably be trying to breathe on my own and be fed as a retarded specimen that would most probably be forced to perpetuate his existence one way or another, thus creating even more problems for future generations to deal with.

As we don't have enough genetic mutations from viruses on our hands, we need more genetic mutation from bad breeding. Think about it, you wouldn't breed a diseased dog with a prize-winner pedigree one, would you? Think about that. I'll think about the future.

Ideas for Personal Motto

Expect your dreams. If that doesn't happen, it's not like nothing will at all. Depression, drugs and death are an answer too. If final, of no consequence. Nature is ever-changing, nothing ever ends, paths lead...

Fear nothing. After all a fear implies its own demise in the process, and if you can accept said demise as part of the quantum probability of events, then you can go easily through anything with the same state of consciousness.

I am free. Because I can think thoughts and express them without caring at all for social problematic of ethics and behavioural bonds. More to be discusses on an eventual topic of existentialism.

Love. Infinitely, no matter if its only yourself or some object or an ideal. Find it in awe, and if you can expand the field, all the more happy you might become.

Always look forward. As it is said, those who wishfully think about time traveling to the past have a serious if not pathological issue in dealing with the present and reality. And if you can't at least perceive reality beyond the box of movability, then you might as well have no future to content your imagination with.

Always allow yourself to be surprised. You live in a quantum universe, so take advantage of it.

Others to follow shortly thereafter (within one year)

Punishment and Compensation

We all know that in any society at any given moment, the inability or failure to act as the majority would automatically draw a punishment, for many centuries death, more recent, legal punishment, fines or imprisonment. The major issue I find with this line of reasoning is expectation, and I further divide this expectation into two categories.

Firstly, the argument derives itself from the expectation of normality and its imposition on any individual or group that would divert from a set line of guidelines by the authorities that would legitimise their action as either divine or from a legal-rational point of view, which holds close to consensual view of democracy, i.e., we all sometime agreed to do this, so it has to be done. The issue of state origins will be discussed at a further date, however, since in a modern society we can redefine the relationship with the authority mediums (at least in theory), it's fair enough to say that we can start agreeing again on whichever form of government and type of rules and regulations we may want, discarding the majority dictatorship side of democracy.

So getting back to the question at hand, the right to derive normalisation legitimacy lies not within the back minds of oligarchies that have a fictitious sense of morality through their intimate recollections of the divine or their own diamond-sparkling soul. I guess that since we say that the more virtuous between a man who has money and is boasting and another that has none and is in want, is quite really the one that does not care at all for the possession of money or derivatives, then we can fairly assume that between men who think themselves as moral and those who are thought as immoral the more righteous would be at least the ones amoral, indefinable and unbiased.

The second matter is focused on the expectation by society of individuals and groups to act in such a way as to do otherwise would recede into punishment, and is partly inferred from the first argument. It should be acted under the presupposition that everyone, since assessed as 'equal', would therefore have an either biased or relative position on any occurrence that would affect them directly or indirectly in any way, then it's quite possible to reason a practical measure and effective keep of normalisation within society: the punishment of those who are alienated from this sense and the compensation, rightly so and equated to their own contributions of those in alignment with the said regulations and norms at any rate imposed.

I should not be understood incorrectly, I do not sanction the use of any societal normalisation techniques imposed by anyone on anybody. I do however mitigate for an effective use of the social apparatus for a better cohesion among the units and sprockets of a society, since the former cannot be avoided, apparently, at all. And one more commentary, I'm obliging the legal-rational use of this approach, for all that are 'equal in front of the law' so that the mechanism of individual and groups can move smoothly towards even an ounce of progress, not the oligarhical-type system, within cliques and sects that are more extremist-based that favour a machinery based on individual control, manipulation and fear induction.