I feel that my philosophy matters so little in these regards, but I only wish to do justice to this man that I may find the right way to speak these words so that others will understand what must be done, and we will change this world to be one that does not have people pursue one's happiness at the expense of another and does not isolate others by making idols and monsters of men and women.
Today, I was sitting at the benches outside SAC near Bruin Walk, and I fell asleep on my blankets as I had been homeless for the last several weeks and had slept unwell. UCLA employees in blue uniform were raking leaves off the grass, but there was one peculiar ~late 20s/ early 30s white man in the group with long blond hair tied in a ponytail wearing a white t-shirt with his sleeves rolled up and grayish jeans. He also had one of those leaf pickers in his hand and was picking up leaves, so he came near my table so that I lifted my head to see who was approaching, and he said to me, "Most other people would leave the area around you alone, but I woke you up to get the leaves, and I'll say hi to you. Hi," and I said "Hi," back and idled around for a little longer.
My main intent for being here was to go to SAC in order to get food from the closet, but it was closed, but having woken up, I decided to go back in and it was open this time so I took a few items then went back to the bench area to figure out a way to put the stuff in my bag.
The same white man was still picking up leaves, and he saw me trying to figure out how to put various items into my backpack, but there wasn't enough space so I struggled. He said, "Having trouble?" and I said "Yah," and he said, "Next time I'll bring a duffel bag, you know they refill it [the closet] every hour, sometimes they even have sodas," and in all honesty I really wanted a soda so I said, "Yah, that's what I was looking for."
He came over and we fell to talking, and since I had my jacket and blanket and was carrying it with my hands, he showed me how I could place the jacket and blanket sideways along the back of the loops of my backpack to free up my hands. I thanked him for this, and I asked him about his story about being homeless, as it was obvious he recognized within me that same situation.
He recounted to me had how had been homeless for 5 years, and that he had been going from area to area, but was mainly in LA. He had started a construction company about a year ago that was going well, but one day he was shot in the chest and foot in a random shooting and ended up in the hospital. He had to close down his company because the injuries prevented him from working, and he was back to being homeless. I listened to him, and I asked him what he was going to do now. He was trying to make his way back to Louisiana where he had a house that was paid off with his family, but he had to save up money in order to make his way down there. The leaf raking was just a temporary job, he would need to find a more stable one, and I wished him luck which he thanked me for. He lamented slightly of how being homeless sucked, how he didn't have a girlfriend and "all their bullshit" because he had no time and was homeless, and how life went on. I was ready to leave and get some soda, so I stood up and shook his hand and wished him luck once more, "God bless," he said, and I felt that he had found a little peace while he spoke to me.
As I was walking away, a female UCLA student or some other faculty that was in charge of the group of leaf rakers began walking alongside me and talked. She thanked me for being patient and talking to the man, and continued on about how he was talkative and how "they" never interrupted conversations when they began, but she had to warn me that he also liked to ask for things, and if he did, that I was not supposed to give him anything. She told me that he was one of their fastest workers, but he also got distracted and because "some" of the workers had mental disabilities that it was important to help them keep focused on their tasks. Sometimes he got aggressive she said, and I looked at her and tried to understand what she was trying to say, but I began to feel sad because I felt she (and perhaps the other employees) had jumped to conclusions about this peculiar man. I thanked her and she thanked me, and I walked away quicker to conceal the tears that were coming.
A man is homeless for 5 years and is robbed of his job by chance —then when he finds work after he has an eviction from his apartment from being unable to pay, does not receive aid from the VA despite being a Veteran, and now wants to talk people while raking leaves, he is considered mentally ill. My god, can we not see that a human who suffers wishes to talk to his fellow humans? That in loneliness and suffering we at once wish to cast aside all that separates us and simply be heard and communicate our worlds to each other and share in human camaraderie? Do we not all suffer immensely as humans and are therefore brought together by it? and this human instead of receiving consolation is told he is different, a threat to people, necessary to stay away from, and equally should receive no help from his fellow people. And should a man who is judged in this fashion without so much as another thought not be outraged? Daily people walk on eggshells around him, and is it not this behavior that causes the exact outrage that people seek to avoid in him? He is judged to be different by no merit other than by his condition, but the circumstances his life has placed him through have led him to his condition, and if we understood those circumstances, would we not have pity on his condition rather than fear? Regardless, he is ousted from society and community, left alone to live his endless days and find his way, and still he makes no real complaint, but works —and the best our society can think of is that he is distracted from his work because he wishes to talk! Is there not a single person who would not be angry if he was told to focus on picking up leaves when he has suffered through what he has suffered through and not given the freedom to simply converse to other people? He looks sufficiently different, weary, beat, and so when he talks, the first feeling our society instills in people is the question, "Why is he talking to me? What does he want?" Why, he wants to feel like a human being! so of course he will be outraged when he is denied the smallest pleasantry he can afford himself which is to converse with other people. Would anyone not feel outraged at the injustice he is put through? To be talked to as if he were a 12 year old in school who couldn't focus on picking up leaves while talking… and wouldn't we consider another grown man who has been homeless and shot, but content in his position to be more mentally ill than him? Who would not be outraged if they could not explain why they were being denied the smallest of consolations for an infinitely deprived life? but we call his anger a symptom of mental illness because it does not fit into a societal politeness when it is the most normal and human thing to feel in his situation. So is what is not polite always considered a mental illness? Psychiatry defines the socially acceptable person to be at perfect peace, a paragon of nicety, but who would want to feel at peace in a world that reeks of spiritual decay, misunderstanding, and decadence? Does the heart not cry out a thousand times over whatever paltry peace the mind has gained? Have I understood correctly?
In pursuit of an idol (WISDOM, GOD, etc.), the one forgets that the only true measure of progress is through people —the idol becomes a way to avoid people. But then, if one makes the idol itself people —then this is a silly as chasing happiness; "my purpose is to help people" —this is a statement devoid of meaning; all purposes are measured in the way that it helps people, without which there can be no purpose made understandable; the purpose there must be something "like" a pursuit of an idol; —Ideological change in xyz, Going to Mars, Helping traffic; but at once understood to benefit oneself and therefore others externally (as opposed to solely internally). If I create a bridge, it is useful to myself and others. What is not beneficial to oneself cannot be beneficial to others —but then isolation towards wisdom and God seldom benefits the individual in totality and usually leaves a metallic after-taste at best.
Most of the times when we say people are different, it means little about actual difference and is more a statement of: I do not want to get closer —when we say people are similar to us, it means little about actual similarities and is more a statement of: I want to get closer to that person… (because actual differences and similarities are always on the surface, generally aren't indicative of much… as I've seen in all cases of comparison that they always fail to grasp at the essence of a person —the core.)
Sometimes the smallest differences are the hardest to overcome.
—therefore not worth trying to prevent; take for example that today you can regret something then come to see it as being a good thing later —this happens often; Nietzsche's suffering, my Dad regretting not being there when I was younger, but if he was there that doesn't suppose a better result than what has happened. In some ways, him not being there was better —my self-will would not have likely developed if he was around to cajole me with his authority.
Regret is a reflection on past events —which is important, but not for the absolution of regret but for the remembrance of recurrent events / themes. Sticking points. Maybe...
A regret feels certain, but we shouldn't feel it as certain; it's always up for constant grounds of re-understanding. This does not mean to be content and drift towards acceptance of all things —that becomes nihilism; it means understanding the inherent dynamicism of morals (as fluid), of really understanding what is right or wrong rather than taking our first impressions of "what is wrong" as true (as static).
Doing the right thing takes precedence over faith —faith is for your own internal peace. When you're really thinking about right and wrong in relation to an action you're going to take that affects someone else (and almost every action always affects someone else), there is no peace; that is the way it is —to attempt to escape this pain and suffering is to deny the valuation of right and wrong which is the supreme good; that what is right and wrong can be continually reevaluated and must be reevaluated is essential.
Faith comes after continually doing right; it's earned.
~6 min read, the difference between experiential and conceptual learning.
Main Idea: World is placing too much emphasis on conceptual learning, when sometimes the concepts themselves aren't really hard, it's just practicing / applying that's difficult —happiness as an example: the concepts aren't hard, but applying them to your own life and making it work requires a bit of thought, but only you can put in that thought.
Home is where you feel you can be yourself… and if you always feel that way, you'll always be at home.
What we currently believe is just there to help us accomplish the progression we need to accomplish… we need to abide by it, and when we have accomplished what we need to accomplish, the belief will change. In this way, we give rise to the idea that humans are dynamic in belief systems fundamentally in order to progress and move towards that which they need to move towards… it is only when people stagnate that they begin to recursively speak the same ideas, the same motifs, the same beliefs… OR in contrast to stagnation, that they haven't accomplished whichever goal their beliefs point them towards. —That's why the beliefs are usually extreme, they help pull the person in opposition to where they currently lay… in other words, the beliefs are not indicative, they are a balancing factor. In short, the self knows how to heal the self, but you have to let it. You have to trust yourself to heal yourself… because the self is showing a movement towards, and it's in that movement towards that all change occurs, change as a necessary for any "healing"; altered state.
It is not that I cannot conceive of a different life than mine… but it is because I have experienced what I have experienced that I must live in the way I do —otherwise I slip into dis-ingenuity: if I had lived as if I had been to Africa and experienced the oppression and squalid conditions there, when I had actually not, it would be a great disservice to the world —but this does not mean I cannot conceive of the difficulty in 3rd world countries… I can pay my respects without pretending to give my life to a cause that I am not concerned with, and I had better concern myself with what I truly care about, and only by doing this can I arrive at doing what is actually good and not merely a pretense for what could be good…
We experience what we experience and believe as we do based on these experiences, but it's usually incorrect —if we moved past our experience and considered on a global scale, we'd realize all the errors we're making because we're relying on only our own experiences to inform our world… it's like believing the Earth doesn't move because our experience of it is that it doesn't move, but that experience doesn't justify the global phenomena that the Earth does revolve, rotationally and locationally —and we experience neither of these because we don't feel it —therefore 2 understandings: 1. that our beliefs are formed on our experiences and likely wrong, 2. our experiences are based on feelings, obvious enough but if we chase these implications, we find that there's a whole bunch of feelings we cannot explain, but are obviously real —and we tend to run from these because we cannot explain them in thought terms…
It is non-ruled based and therefore requires observance of freedom of both speakers —which most often occurs in reciprocal monologues. Ergo: you can't understand someone well through Q&A, you need candor which means no frame.
"teaching morals" —valuations of "right", "wrong", "good", "bad' ; must happen at a meta-level since morals are dynamic.
—The idea of romance and poetry in our porn age is almost ridiculous… if a sexual desire is satisfied by porn when the lover should have waited and longed for the embrace of the woman he loves, isn't that a true sign of a loss of poetry? We ourselves are not so wise… we "get what we want", but stifle any real sentiments from arising… sentiments that, yes, cause ample frustration, but also, in the end, bring about the greatest joy in wait. As Simone de Beauvoir said, "Lewis, I can come back every year. If we're sure of seeing each other every year, there won't be any separation, only waits. And when you love strongly enough, you can wait in happiness." emphasis mine.
We are at birth born to avoid the bad, therefore our eyes instantly go towards the bad to avoid it… that is why love has not taken root in this world; for love sees good —no longer seeks to avoid the bad, but only looks to go towards one another. By nature we are not good or bad; we are by nature avoidant of the bad; therefore we shelter ourselves and make enemies of people. Our avoidance of the bad is most certainly linked to what feels bad over what is actually bad… and what feels good over what is actually good; this is the normal human default —the question is if it can change or be made to work in an environment…
A psychiatrist's job is to help you establish peace of mind —it's not to help you do the right thing, however, the only way to obtain peace of mind is to feel you've done the right thing —that's literally a definition of the opposition of regret; to minimize regret is to continually do the right thing —in other words, psychiatry, since it can't give true peace of mind, settles for sedation —neutrality, nothingness, nihilism, acceptance of all things so everything becomes right, but that's not true: not everything is right. True peace of mind is weighing in on your own conscious, it's a moral dilemma, it requires some baseline level of strife until you become more comfortable making moral decisions.
To test for self-honesty —put yourself in hypotheticals; "would I still believe in God if God asked me to kill my son? (Abraham)" —Just like when you enter the army as a reserve, you don't expect to go to war, but if you're called for duty, you're obligated by contract. Just as when you follow God, you are not actively asked to kill your son at every moment, but if you were, you are obligated to by the will of God to do so. So? Do you believe or not? —we can move to relationships, if you took out sex, would you still be with this person? And the sad answer for most people is probably not —that probably explains for the majority of relationship break-ups; it was never about the person, just biological emotions —affirmation of attractiveness through sex, procreation, not that these are bad things, but in the absence of everything else, these things don't make for lasting relationships —they are by nature fickle.
For the christians —the absolution of evil, pain, and suffering is impossible and/or not a good thing. For rationalists —the necessity of "irrational" decision-making and the pursuit of what exists outside yourself cannot be understated. Religion + Reason are not at odds with each other; what reason lacks faith clearly solves for, what faith lacks reason clearly knows better. Neither reason nor religion can account for the will and autonomy of an individual being that "rolls like a wheel" —in it of itself, seeing it's own will as divine, and projecting itself as holy creator —wherein neither faith nor reason have its place, and instead what we have is pure essence.
By trying to be more creative, you become less creative since creativity is essentially without process, non-rule based and dynamic —reading advice on creativity is essentially adding advice; routine; rules to attempt to coddle and force creativity… which is the antithesis of creativity. Creativity also needs to be directed at an activity, it cannot happen in a vacuum.
Are rationale and feeling at odds? Does unveiling how emotions work destroy it? Let's say I understood the whole mating process; would it therefore be destroyed and devoid of meaning? —The answer is no, but why?
Why do I feel so strongly that "expanding consciousness" won't destroy emotion? But I only mean to say that I understand what I don't understand —but am capable of acting despite my non-understanding with "understanding" ; …. an embodied movement, that's all —full will rather than just consciousness. Which encapsulates. It's a non-issue this question.
The day we can exist completely alone will be the day the world is perfect —the difficulty is that you can't help a person be alone; being alone precludes help from anyone. … you can only point and help people come to understand.