Anger
I woke up one day, and felt really angry about people who did not bother to understand me but rather just got angry at me and acted as if I was in the wrong. However, now that I think about it, it is not something they do normally on a normal basis. Negative emotions aren’t things people are given a choice in “want” or “don’t want” to do. It is not something that is easily willed. Thus, emotions aren’t another part of us, nor what some may call true colours. They’re just the consequences of being human. It is unavoidable and natural and when it happens, people are still who they are, except in the cases of anger they just don’t feel like being themselves because a situation is presented in such a way that when they interpret it, they just feel so slaughtered by it that they have to find an outlet. Emotions are like values. They add up, stack together and ball up into a bigger value. To me, at first I found it very convenient to be angry at people who got angry back at me, thinking that “wow, so this is his true colours” but I found out that I’m a victim of it as well. There’s no point in adjusting one’s view to someone that’s angry or having negative emotions because it’s still a stupid thing to do. It’s nearly like the same thing as acceptance. Hmm, actually it’s far from it. Humans… when talking about acceptance. One must be able to accept a human for what that person is. Secondly however, one must be able to accept that a human is human and what makes them human will be with them. For me, I guess that concept won’t be so readily grasped for now, but I’m learning. To be able to accept a person when he’s been viewed in all aspects is not an accomplishment humans are born to do, but learnt.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The inability of humans to be reliable?
The inability of humans to be reliable?
Here I'd like to question a human's reliability. Can a human prove his worth to others that he is reliable? It is as possible as proving his worth to his own self, which is basically impossible. Millions of factors can be listed on why nothing is reliable. External, internal implications, scenario situational cases, psychological states and mentality, biological breakdowns and evolutionary paths, backgrounds and history, all of these are just a few that compromises a person to be reliable at all.
A person ultimately, to a self-view, can trust himself, if we ignore biological and psychological states of that person, and it is easy enough for him to turn against anyone. Relying on this "freewill" mentality that people have debated for years whether such a thing is true or are we just following a biologically randomized protocol, means that even if we were to show loyalty of say, a 10 year friendship, or promises, or vows, or silent agreements, we still have the "freewill" of following honour and code or simply just breaking it.
Even if a person has managed to formulate a process in which to prove himself reliable, humans are such that they can put on an act, a fake, a front, and throw all that mattered aside just for a simple idealistic goal such as power or fame. humans are such, that they can act in any manner they like, and it is impossible to guarantee that anyone will follow rules or regulations or promises or loyalty, simply because we are humans and we have the option, no matter what the situation, of breaking the bond.
Whoever we are with or have a bond with, no matter how many promises are made or guarantees, nothing stops one from this "freewill" to pick that option which goes against what both have created, their own bond and relationship. Friends are never quite eternal, they fade and come back time to time, and strings that have been snapped are easily tied, only to be snapped in another place soon enough.
if humans have the ability to not be reliable, why make friends at all? why have contact with people? this is the simple reason. that slim chance for a person to change himself completely and devastate ties in an instance for their personal goals is the same amount of chance that you'd find someone out there who won't ever occur that slim chance.
basically, anyone can turn against or isolate themselves from you, but so can anyone be that special friend who will never be the anyone formerly mentioned.
Here I'd like to question a human's reliability. Can a human prove his worth to others that he is reliable? It is as possible as proving his worth to his own self, which is basically impossible. Millions of factors can be listed on why nothing is reliable. External, internal implications, scenario situational cases, psychological states and mentality, biological breakdowns and evolutionary paths, backgrounds and history, all of these are just a few that compromises a person to be reliable at all.
A person ultimately, to a self-view, can trust himself, if we ignore biological and psychological states of that person, and it is easy enough for him to turn against anyone. Relying on this "freewill" mentality that people have debated for years whether such a thing is true or are we just following a biologically randomized protocol, means that even if we were to show loyalty of say, a 10 year friendship, or promises, or vows, or silent agreements, we still have the "freewill" of following honour and code or simply just breaking it.
Even if a person has managed to formulate a process in which to prove himself reliable, humans are such that they can put on an act, a fake, a front, and throw all that mattered aside just for a simple idealistic goal such as power or fame. humans are such, that they can act in any manner they like, and it is impossible to guarantee that anyone will follow rules or regulations or promises or loyalty, simply because we are humans and we have the option, no matter what the situation, of breaking the bond.
Whoever we are with or have a bond with, no matter how many promises are made or guarantees, nothing stops one from this "freewill" to pick that option which goes against what both have created, their own bond and relationship. Friends are never quite eternal, they fade and come back time to time, and strings that have been snapped are easily tied, only to be snapped in another place soon enough.
if humans have the ability to not be reliable, why make friends at all? why have contact with people? this is the simple reason. that slim chance for a person to change himself completely and devastate ties in an instance for their personal goals is the same amount of chance that you'd find someone out there who won't ever occur that slim chance.
basically, anyone can turn against or isolate themselves from you, but so can anyone be that special friend who will never be the anyone formerly mentioned.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Advice
Advice
I did develop a method/technique to coach on how advising should be. The psychological influences that plays along with it, how it mainly works and how what a simple cause will bring about any possibility of effect ranging from drastic to nothing. I did a theoretical explanation and a brief account on the character, attitude, scenario or situation, feelings and relationship level to determine the possible average degree of influence and ability to sway a person's decision and options.
Up to where does an advice not become an advice? Exactly where is that fine line that determines what that a person say isn't a total psychological grip to forcefully maneuver? The ability to advice isn't as damn simple as you think it is. Underlying meanings and hidden speeches. Suggestive reinforcements and manipulative realignments. An advice should be something that allows for the hearer to keep his own judgment, but as well as thinking strongly about the advisor's.
To be able to play an advice to the point where it is subtle enough to convince easily, but as well as to give the hearer a chance for a second or third thought, isn't simply just spitting out what's on your mind. Most stuff didn't go anywhere by simply just going. To think is not just a simple matter of neurons and neurontransmitter. It isn't close to imagining or perceiving what you're doing, or going to do.
To think about what you're actually going to say is exceedingly different from just saying what's on your mind. To be frank is something that's gonna hurt, and it is more than just emotional hurt if it goes wrong. The consequence can drag anyone through the mud, to the core, to hell and back.
Advising means the ability to give, yet allow for the person to choose to receive the gift. The ability to place the user in such a difficult position yet simple one in which either choice is ok, acceptable and manageable, with dire consequences and potential benefits of their own.
To give a one-sided argument or debate, a story biasedly fixated on one side, is not what an adviser should do. It not only hinders the current mindset and logical thinking on the correct path to take, but it might also dampen the ability to correctly think in a way that is definitely on the average better on the long-run.
I don't spit all these stuff out at random. I should know what I am talking about. Advising, you wouldn't give a damn when you're doing it, how you're doing it, and how badly you're screwing up the other person's life. Amateurs should stick out of the way. That's what I did, until I sat down and started formulating theories. They may not work, but I'm the closest there is.
I did develop a method/technique to coach on how advising should be. The psychological influences that plays along with it, how it mainly works and how what a simple cause will bring about any possibility of effect ranging from drastic to nothing. I did a theoretical explanation and a brief account on the character, attitude, scenario or situation, feelings and relationship level to determine the possible average degree of influence and ability to sway a person's decision and options.
Up to where does an advice not become an advice? Exactly where is that fine line that determines what that a person say isn't a total psychological grip to forcefully maneuver? The ability to advice isn't as damn simple as you think it is. Underlying meanings and hidden speeches. Suggestive reinforcements and manipulative realignments. An advice should be something that allows for the hearer to keep his own judgment, but as well as thinking strongly about the advisor's.
To be able to play an advice to the point where it is subtle enough to convince easily, but as well as to give the hearer a chance for a second or third thought, isn't simply just spitting out what's on your mind. Most stuff didn't go anywhere by simply just going. To think is not just a simple matter of neurons and neurontransmitter. It isn't close to imagining or perceiving what you're doing, or going to do.
To think about what you're actually going to say is exceedingly different from just saying what's on your mind. To be frank is something that's gonna hurt, and it is more than just emotional hurt if it goes wrong. The consequence can drag anyone through the mud, to the core, to hell and back.
Advising means the ability to give, yet allow for the person to choose to receive the gift. The ability to place the user in such a difficult position yet simple one in which either choice is ok, acceptable and manageable, with dire consequences and potential benefits of their own.
To give a one-sided argument or debate, a story biasedly fixated on one side, is not what an adviser should do. It not only hinders the current mindset and logical thinking on the correct path to take, but it might also dampen the ability to correctly think in a way that is definitely on the average better on the long-run.
I don't spit all these stuff out at random. I should know what I am talking about. Advising, you wouldn't give a damn when you're doing it, how you're doing it, and how badly you're screwing up the other person's life. Amateurs should stick out of the way. That's what I did, until I sat down and started formulating theories. They may not work, but I'm the closest there is.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Possibility
Possibility
If there's one thing I realized that is so powerful about 1% is that it opens up a million possibilities. Chance, luck, possibility, it's all the same. Maybe not, means there's a chance for maybe yes. Whenever we do something that rolls the dice, should we do it or not even if it seems to be completely win-proof, the whole point of doing it is so that you give the opportunity of it happening. It's almost in everywhere. In computer games you stand and fight against something you realise is very powerful compared to your character or army. In sports you run up front to allow your ally to pass to you for a one-touch score at the goal. You appeal for a school. Many a times it is a stupid decision and it feels like a total waste of time and effort. But the ability to give chance is very powerful. It may all be fruitless, but even the concept stays true in the sentence. If it may not, it may be. If it might, it might not. The basis on nothing is impossible refers to both extreme results of a chance in proving that everything you do gives you a possibility of something happening to your interest. It's the same as 4D or toto. If anyone ask why do you do it, even if all fails, it is always because one day something might happen. It's the same with love, with gambling, with taking a career, getting a family and so on. The only problem that can arise from this thing we cannot escape from is how many positive opportunities you open up, and how many negative options you remove from your life. Be nice to people, you increase the chance of a stronger friendship and vice versa. Generically, the rules of life will follow as such. Knowing when to open an opportunity and when not to might not necessarily allow you to gain better chances for you intention, but it does give you the chance. If you look it at some way, 1% is a lot. Most of the time, even the chance to gain the chance to make an opportunity for a chance you desire to occur is very difficult. Like me, I managed to scrap up a dream. You know what's a dream? A dream is a chance that occurs every second, and one day it will happen if you give enough chances. It's like if 5% it will happen, you could go through the 95% of the non-happening events before it happens, or you could not. The thing is, if you don't open your door, no one will walk in. Unless of course, there is the possibility someone breaks it down. That's what door repairmen are for aren't they?
If there's one thing I realized that is so powerful about 1% is that it opens up a million possibilities. Chance, luck, possibility, it's all the same. Maybe not, means there's a chance for maybe yes. Whenever we do something that rolls the dice, should we do it or not even if it seems to be completely win-proof, the whole point of doing it is so that you give the opportunity of it happening. It's almost in everywhere. In computer games you stand and fight against something you realise is very powerful compared to your character or army. In sports you run up front to allow your ally to pass to you for a one-touch score at the goal. You appeal for a school. Many a times it is a stupid decision and it feels like a total waste of time and effort. But the ability to give chance is very powerful. It may all be fruitless, but even the concept stays true in the sentence. If it may not, it may be. If it might, it might not. The basis on nothing is impossible refers to both extreme results of a chance in proving that everything you do gives you a possibility of something happening to your interest. It's the same as 4D or toto. If anyone ask why do you do it, even if all fails, it is always because one day something might happen. It's the same with love, with gambling, with taking a career, getting a family and so on. The only problem that can arise from this thing we cannot escape from is how many positive opportunities you open up, and how many negative options you remove from your life. Be nice to people, you increase the chance of a stronger friendship and vice versa. Generically, the rules of life will follow as such. Knowing when to open an opportunity and when not to might not necessarily allow you to gain better chances for you intention, but it does give you the chance. If you look it at some way, 1% is a lot. Most of the time, even the chance to gain the chance to make an opportunity for a chance you desire to occur is very difficult. Like me, I managed to scrap up a dream. You know what's a dream? A dream is a chance that occurs every second, and one day it will happen if you give enough chances. It's like if 5% it will happen, you could go through the 95% of the non-happening events before it happens, or you could not. The thing is, if you don't open your door, no one will walk in. Unless of course, there is the possibility someone breaks it down. That's what door repairmen are for aren't they?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Blame
Blame
That would be something none is free from. Of which is also one of my two only principals I currently live by, but apparently not enough of. Blaming others is possibly the easiest way to escape the harsh reality of the situation one enters. Just throw the burden on someone else and let that person face the music. To take the blame for something you did is a very powerful decision that does change the fate most of the time for the people involved. To take the blame for something you didn't do, that could be the worst or best thing one can do. Blame is always there. When something happens, it happens and whether one tries to do something or not, it will always forever remain there no matter what. The point is, like a life who begins its existence on Earth, who will take it away? Who will end it? Not necessarily should the direct troublemaker be the one to take it. If I could answer that question, everyone should take the blame. Not because sharing it means people will be fairly judged, but because that way, they can realize that none is free from blame. It is not always who causes it, but who that did not manage to prevent it. Because of how the world works, with the amount of network and interaction, anyone can be the cause of a blame, if you are willing to take indirectness to the utmost extreme level. For me, I should always take the blame. It is hard to do so, but it helps to lessen a lot of stress and internal conflicts between me and the people that are in such a case. Take the blame, but let someone else off the hook. It is a chance for that person to repeat the mistake, but hopefully, on the first time you take a burden willingly from someone who has it, maybe that person might change. Who that takes the blame always go either up or down, there's no stay still and nothing happened. The chance to improves is more evident in taking the blame, but there is still a small chance making someone else the scapegoat to improve. But, when someone takes the blame, by how he/she does it, you can truly mark out one of the better characteristics of that person. It's always who want to do it, and thus who take a step forward.
That would be something none is free from. Of which is also one of my two only principals I currently live by, but apparently not enough of. Blaming others is possibly the easiest way to escape the harsh reality of the situation one enters. Just throw the burden on someone else and let that person face the music. To take the blame for something you did is a very powerful decision that does change the fate most of the time for the people involved. To take the blame for something you didn't do, that could be the worst or best thing one can do. Blame is always there. When something happens, it happens and whether one tries to do something or not, it will always forever remain there no matter what. The point is, like a life who begins its existence on Earth, who will take it away? Who will end it? Not necessarily should the direct troublemaker be the one to take it. If I could answer that question, everyone should take the blame. Not because sharing it means people will be fairly judged, but because that way, they can realize that none is free from blame. It is not always who causes it, but who that did not manage to prevent it. Because of how the world works, with the amount of network and interaction, anyone can be the cause of a blame, if you are willing to take indirectness to the utmost extreme level. For me, I should always take the blame. It is hard to do so, but it helps to lessen a lot of stress and internal conflicts between me and the people that are in such a case. Take the blame, but let someone else off the hook. It is a chance for that person to repeat the mistake, but hopefully, on the first time you take a burden willingly from someone who has it, maybe that person might change. Who that takes the blame always go either up or down, there's no stay still and nothing happened. The chance to improves is more evident in taking the blame, but there is still a small chance making someone else the scapegoat to improve. But, when someone takes the blame, by how he/she does it, you can truly mark out one of the better characteristics of that person. It's always who want to do it, and thus who take a step forward.
Life
Life
I guess one of the most hardest question to answer yourself is what is my life about? Frankly, it shouldn't be a question to be answered, simply due to that it's one of those things which are almost the same why should I need to live (besides the biological original reason of continuation of a species, which there's no serious reason to actually be true). But if there's something I'd like to share, would be can I call what I'm doing now my life? To say, I can't exactly admit I'm living my life despite the holidays. My life is writing, and all I've been doing is play WoW, of which I realise I may be a tad too addicted to it (latest WoW spree is up to 7.30am in the morning before sleeping) and that does affect my life. For me, life is about doing something significant enough that I learn something or gain something at this point of the day so that in the near future I have a new set of skills or talents to show that with the passing hours I have done something to not necessarily improve my life but to change my life. Being stuck in the past is a boring thing, and same as being stuck at Lv20, or only know how to do one kind of sliding trick, is definitely boring. The drive of my life is not to be boring. Monotonous isn't something I'd like to stick with, and I'd like to eventually one day say "Hey, I can finally do this!" (which has been proven by being able to play What I've Done though it's still under construction). It is not a question what do I wish to get out of my life, but rather do I want to move on or stay still? The whole big Truth the world seeks isn't real, and nothing we can do can justify why anything really works that way. Such as the infinite strings of "why?" one can stick on to anything one can think off. Why does anything exist? That would be one of them. But if we keep thinking of worldly situations, maybe one day some alien will come down and tell us, but for now, my life is all about taking one step forward. Trust me, one step forward is the most difficult task anyone can do. There are the runners, there are the crippled, but still to be able to prove the fact that today is different from tomorrow is very very difficult. Time flows as normal, but it is how we use it that makes our life flow along with it. Basically, is each day the same as yesterday? If it were I'd wonder what so interesting about living.
I guess one of the most hardest question to answer yourself is what is my life about? Frankly, it shouldn't be a question to be answered, simply due to that it's one of those things which are almost the same why should I need to live (besides the biological original reason of continuation of a species, which there's no serious reason to actually be true). But if there's something I'd like to share, would be can I call what I'm doing now my life? To say, I can't exactly admit I'm living my life despite the holidays. My life is writing, and all I've been doing is play WoW, of which I realise I may be a tad too addicted to it (latest WoW spree is up to 7.30am in the morning before sleeping) and that does affect my life. For me, life is about doing something significant enough that I learn something or gain something at this point of the day so that in the near future I have a new set of skills or talents to show that with the passing hours I have done something to not necessarily improve my life but to change my life. Being stuck in the past is a boring thing, and same as being stuck at Lv20, or only know how to do one kind of sliding trick, is definitely boring. The drive of my life is not to be boring. Monotonous isn't something I'd like to stick with, and I'd like to eventually one day say "Hey, I can finally do this!" (which has been proven by being able to play What I've Done though it's still under construction). It is not a question what do I wish to get out of my life, but rather do I want to move on or stay still? The whole big Truth the world seeks isn't real, and nothing we can do can justify why anything really works that way. Such as the infinite strings of "why?" one can stick on to anything one can think off. Why does anything exist? That would be one of them. But if we keep thinking of worldly situations, maybe one day some alien will come down and tell us, but for now, my life is all about taking one step forward. Trust me, one step forward is the most difficult task anyone can do. There are the runners, there are the crippled, but still to be able to prove the fact that today is different from tomorrow is very very difficult. Time flows as normal, but it is how we use it that makes our life flow along with it. Basically, is each day the same as yesterday? If it were I'd wonder what so interesting about living.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Addiction
Addiction
I suppose this is something everyone is guilty/proud of. Even I have issues with this term, although I suppose when I deal with it the end result is of towards more of a general good product than losing to it. Basically, addiction is just overuse of anything. Skating too much, reading too much, gaming too much, eating too much, studying too much whatever that comes into mind. One of the scariest thing about these kind of psychological issues is that many a times, because it is more of a mental issue rather than a materialistic one, it is very hard to grasp the concept that thyself is addicted to whatever. The hours spent on it increases, negligence on other possibly more important priorities decreases and depending on the type of materialistic or mental matter that one is addicted to, most of the time oneself social life would also be degraded. Addiction covers everything, and this will stand true. Even if debating about addicted to breathing, it can come in many forms. Intoxication of chemicals, smoking, sniffing of substances and so on. Everything can be addicted to. I suppose getting addicted is easy, be it a chemical, psychological or a forced reaction to equate into this state. Addiction mostly is a negative effect, based on the principal that too much of anything will become a problem now or later in the future. But sometimes addiction has their advantages. Because some addictions are easier to get off than others, one use of addiction that I have never quite seen first-hand is to jump from one addiction to another till it reaches one that can be resolved easily. Such as a chain smoker to an alcohol drinker. Both are bad, but so is everything. The concept is to change addiction to something maintainable, using the psychological effect of addiction to ween off the previous one. Also, it could prove as motivation, same as many workshops provided by the school to psycho students into hardcore studying. The result might not show the fruits of the done labour, but it induces a chance that the person addicted to a "supposedly" good thing might emerge with something worthwhile. It is a totally different thing from interest or hobby, both of which are controllable, but addiction is not. Proving one is not addicted is often difficult, where pleasure usually overrides the decision to point out that one is addicted to a certain thing. It may not be a every single minute addiction, but addiction would mean that the density of usage increases as time goes on, to a point where it becomes a destructive matter. It is possible to be addicted and then not to a certain thing without ever being conscious of it, as it is possible to be addicted and not able to do anything about it. Basically, the degree and the existence of any addiction highly depends on a person. The ability to psychologically manage it, the attitude to detect and be aware of it, whether it is maturing or aggressively manifesting, deteremines the level of addiction to anything in a person's life. Because it covers so many angles in the world, it is hard to lay anything down on this addiction matter, because it is too diverse. The possibly only thing that I can truly know about it is that it is always up to you to decide if you got an addiction or not and whether you should ween of it. Proving an addiction is hard. Resisting an addiction is never because you can't, but rather that at whenever instance, you can do it, but you choose not to do it. It's always a free will thing.
I suppose this is something everyone is guilty/proud of. Even I have issues with this term, although I suppose when I deal with it the end result is of towards more of a general good product than losing to it. Basically, addiction is just overuse of anything. Skating too much, reading too much, gaming too much, eating too much, studying too much whatever that comes into mind. One of the scariest thing about these kind of psychological issues is that many a times, because it is more of a mental issue rather than a materialistic one, it is very hard to grasp the concept that thyself is addicted to whatever. The hours spent on it increases, negligence on other possibly more important priorities decreases and depending on the type of materialistic or mental matter that one is addicted to, most of the time oneself social life would also be degraded. Addiction covers everything, and this will stand true. Even if debating about addicted to breathing, it can come in many forms. Intoxication of chemicals, smoking, sniffing of substances and so on. Everything can be addicted to. I suppose getting addicted is easy, be it a chemical, psychological or a forced reaction to equate into this state. Addiction mostly is a negative effect, based on the principal that too much of anything will become a problem now or later in the future. But sometimes addiction has their advantages. Because some addictions are easier to get off than others, one use of addiction that I have never quite seen first-hand is to jump from one addiction to another till it reaches one that can be resolved easily. Such as a chain smoker to an alcohol drinker. Both are bad, but so is everything. The concept is to change addiction to something maintainable, using the psychological effect of addiction to ween off the previous one. Also, it could prove as motivation, same as many workshops provided by the school to psycho students into hardcore studying. The result might not show the fruits of the done labour, but it induces a chance that the person addicted to a "supposedly" good thing might emerge with something worthwhile. It is a totally different thing from interest or hobby, both of which are controllable, but addiction is not. Proving one is not addicted is often difficult, where pleasure usually overrides the decision to point out that one is addicted to a certain thing. It may not be a every single minute addiction, but addiction would mean that the density of usage increases as time goes on, to a point where it becomes a destructive matter. It is possible to be addicted and then not to a certain thing without ever being conscious of it, as it is possible to be addicted and not able to do anything about it. Basically, the degree and the existence of any addiction highly depends on a person. The ability to psychologically manage it, the attitude to detect and be aware of it, whether it is maturing or aggressively manifesting, deteremines the level of addiction to anything in a person's life. Because it covers so many angles in the world, it is hard to lay anything down on this addiction matter, because it is too diverse. The possibly only thing that I can truly know about it is that it is always up to you to decide if you got an addiction or not and whether you should ween of it. Proving an addiction is hard. Resisting an addiction is never because you can't, but rather that at whenever instance, you can do it, but you choose not to do it. It's always a free will thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)