Introduction to Nowlos

Introduction to the topic:

The following is a series of pieces I wrote up some years ago to explain a philosophical point of view in simple terms. I invented the word "nowlos", used just like the word "know" but with a deeper meaning: it isn't false. The word "knowledge" to some people implies that there can still be error, whether it be innately in what is "known" or in the person's interpretation of that. The idea beyond creating nowlos is an attempt to label what truth humans possess - what we can trust. At some point, I intend to speak about the difference between knowing and believing, which will attempt to argue away any objections to the idea of nowlos or anything I have said in this paragraph, but no guarantees. XD

========================
Limitation of Knowledge
------------------------

Introduction

We seek truth, we seek some connection with it, fact that is undeniable. Many of us who have explored various logical paths have realized that it is not only impossible to prove, that is, declare as truth beyond the shadow of a doubt, the existence of God, but it is also impossible to prove, according to the same such definition, the existence of oneself. Such men, particularly Soren Kierkegaard, believed such facts because they seemed to be consistent with man's knowledge of reality. Kierkegaard was one of them who did not find reason to deny the existence of God, but rather understood that it is equally impossible to prove that God does not exist. However, being that we live in a broad world full of many perspectives, there are undoubtedly people whose perspective differs from this, believing that man can know things. They think that, because an idea is in mind, it must be true. There are an innumerable number of errors in this - far too many to label. Nevertheless, only the aforementioned philosophers find this peculiar and an unacceptable definition. In the common man's eye, it is reasonable to accept that some knowledge may be faulty, and therefore not true, even if he denies such a claim. For example, a banker may state that he knows the money he put in the bank safe is still there even though, unbeknown to him, a thief came and took it. Rather than redefining the ordinary person's definition and having to explain why this redefinition makes the word inapplicable everywhere, I propose a simple definition for study:

Knowledge -- The possession of ideas believed to be true.

What determines whether some knowledge is considered as truth is science, or more precisely, study. On the most basic level, this means observation of phenomenon. Those of you who are scientists already probably have an understanding of the word "phenomenon", but for those who don't, I present an example: Consider throwing a rubber ball at a wall. Assuming you are in an isolated system (that is, one in which your experiment will not be interfered with beyond the ones normally expected such as gravity), the ball should bounce off the wall once you have thrown the ball with the proper amount of velocity in a direction towards the wall. I say proper amount of velocity because the ball does need enough speed to reach the wall so you can observe the collision. The collision will result in the reversal of the ball's direction. If you repeat this experiment, the ball will observe the ball bouncing off the wall every time they collide. Thus, we say that the ball consistently bounces off the wall when the two collide. In science, this would be called scientific law because, given that the circumstances remain the same (and for the most part, they do), the observation reveals the same result. It is important to note that scientific law, as we have just discussed, does not say anything about the cause of the result, that is to say, the law does not say anything about the underlying principle (in this case, the "transfer of momentum"). This is a very important fact as shall be presented.

Before we continue, you should be aware of the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. A law is a phenomenon - it has a condition (ex. a ball colliding with a wall) and a result (ex. the ball bounces away from the wall it collides with). A theory is an idea of the cause, that is, an explanation for the result (in our example, the cause was the principle of momentum transfer). Theory does not have to be true for the law to be true. The theory may be completely wrong, therefore, it is better to refer to a theory as a suggestion that explains a law (or explains another theory). It is important to note this because, as a matter of fact, all human observation is science, and much of what we believe is in fact only theory. Nevertheless, possession of information concerning the theory (that is, information about what the theory says or what it is) is, by academia, considered to be knowledge.


Of a Great Many Apples

The following is an analysis of scientific law and theory:

Suppose a scientist (or anyone in general) went out to observe what would happen if they left an apple on their back porch. Assuming they watch carefully and live in a wooded area, the person might observe a squirrel climb upon their porch and steal the apple. If the repeat this experiment day after day and they observe the same thing happens, they may conclude that a squirrel will steal an apple from off of their porch if they leave it there. This idea is consistent with reality, therefore, it is considered true. Suppose one day, a bird steals the apple. No longer is the person's past observation scientific law. Rather than throwing away the idea, however, scientists generally modify it, adding various restrictions so that the law will remain consistent with what is observed is reality. In the given example, the condition for the law to be true might be given the addendum: "as long as another animal does not take the apple first". Notice that the law (Squirrels steal apples) says nothing about the cause (Why squirrels steal apples).

Ideally, the law is true for a multitude of cases. However, the more we examine the scenario, the more restrictive the conditions in the law would be in order for it to remain consistent with reality. It the example, for instance, the person may discover another person taking their apple or the apple being eaten by fungus or the apple being blown away by the wind. There are an infinite number of scenarios that would lead to the law being violated, and thus the condition of the law would have to be restricted all the more. However, as human beings who cannot devise every possibly scenario (nor care about most of them), we settle for the most functional definition, that is, the one based off of the results from scenarios we have observed.


The Apple in a Room

Given that we observe what seem to be all possible scenarios of interest, or at least those that are most common, we make assumptions. It is fundamental to human nature to make assumptions. Without making assumptions, we would not be able to progress very far in pursuit of knowledge. However, with assumptions, we also skew our view of truth, or at the very least, skew our view of how truth should be attained.

Recall that if an idea is consistent with reality, we say that the idea is a law or, at the very least, we assume it is true for all scenarios of interest, that is, those scenarios whose explanations can be explained in terms of our past experiences. We turn our attention, now, to examine the possibility of this not being the case; we set there be the possibility that we have not observed all scenarios of interest or have forgotten them. There is nothing other than our faulty intuition to say that this is not the case. In fact, people often forget that is possible they have not considered (or believed in the possibility of) all of the possibilities. Hence, when they are informed of their error, they are surprised. This surprise occurs only when the person makes an assumption, regardless of whether they are closed-minded and confident about something but also when they are seeking truth (as do detectives).

Now, an attempt will be made to surprise you. Suppose there is an apple in an empty room with a table in the center. A person walks in the room and sets an apple on the table. The person leaves the room, noticing no one come in or out. When the person returns, they find the apple missing from the table. A good detective is also a good practical philosopher. This is why practical philosophers like G.K. Chesterton could write mystery books like Father Brown. These men ask practical questions and make themselves aware of the situation. In light of their example, there ought to be a thorough analysis of things. Such an analysis might reveal that the window in the back of the room in open. It would reveal footsteps of various shapes on the floor and leading up to the table. A variety of thieves come to mind; the natural assumption, based on past experiences of ours, might be to assume that another individual or creature stole the apple. How else could it be missing. How much time elapsed between when the person left the room and when they returned. At this point in the analysis, it may seem extraneous to speak of details outside of the room, considering we only want to know what happened within it. However, now we shift the analysis to things unquestioned. For example, where is the room? We learn it is in a house? How old is the person who entered the room with the apple? - Maybe age 8 or 9. What was going on at the time? - Someone was yelling. What was the yeller shouting? - "Bring it back!" After a thorough analysis, we discover that the simplest explanation for the disappearance of the apple was that the person who put it on the table proceeded to pick it up and return it to the person shouting at them. This is a practically reasonable explanation, but one often overlooked. Many people discover things in their pockets that they had put there and had simply forgotten about.

It is important that you extract from this the fact that our assumptions and opinions can error, and not only that, but see a practical example of it. There are many books of wisdom and science that explain, in one way or another, we can be wrong, have faulty knowledge (that is, knowledge that is inapplicable to reality), or make assumptions that were not useful. However, this principle is not often applied, despite how fundamentally it is to world view or personal perspective on everything ranging from core beliefs, to personal relationships to one's favorite kind of apple.


Expanding Consideration

There is a pressing question that is often overlooked because of its annoyance: Why not? It is the response question to "Why?" The latter question asks for a cause; the former question asks for the restrictions or the system. If there are no restrictions on a system, there is no cause nor need of it. The lack of restrictions is the cause or allows something to be the cause.

For example, suppose a bird dropped an apple into a bucket. The likelihood of that occurring is quite rare, and therefore unexpected. If someone who observed such an event were to be questioned by someone who did not wake the same observation, the latter might question why the apple is in the bucket. The observer can claim that a bird dropped the apple in, but the questioner might be in disbelief, given the unlikelihood of such an event, unless he makes such an observation himself. When he objects, the observer might ask "Why not?", questioning why the doubter thinks a bird could not have dropped the apple into the bucket. The observer is seeking for the limitations that would restrict a bird from dropping an apple in the bucket. In short, there is a lack of restrictions, which allows for the bird dropping the apple to be the cause of the apple in the bucket. The apple's arrival in the bucket is obviously no the only route an apple could have taken in order to enter the bucket. For instance, the observer could have dropped an apple in the bucket. However, the bird dropping the apple is nevertheless a viable explanation.

There are an infinite number of examples of unlikely causes resulting in events that could have been caused in simpler ways, but I have resorted to choosing these few and hopefully you will begin to understand the idea. Utilizing questions such as "why not?", we can begin to see the arising of a great number of absurdities having possibility. These possibilities are considered unlikely, not because they are impossible, but because we have neither experienced them nor are we able to contrive a "simple" explanation as to how they might come about. Unfortunately, this is the case with many ideas, silly ones or not. The phrase "today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality" comes to mind. Nevertheless, if a person cannot contrive or is unable to obtain from someone else a "simple" or reasonable explanation for something, they are not as likely to believe it. Notice, here, we make the assumption that something is only possible if it can be explained. This, however, is not the case, and by making that kind of assumption, we limit the options we are able to conceive as possibilities.

Examine for yourself the possibilities. Think of a scenario and begin to envision all of the things associated with it. To make it easier, insert something into the scenario something that you normally would not imagine in it. If you come up with an idea and decide to reject it, ask yourself why you rejected it. Then try to come up with viable reasons for why those things that you did include should or should not be present. In a sense, you are becoming a story writer, but at the same time, you are improving your philosophy. There is a paradox you ought to remember that some people have not yet applied to itself: The more you know, the more you know how little you know. Hence, Socrates said, "I know that I am wise because I know that I know nothing." The more possibilities you have, the more "why not?" questions you ought to have, and then you may begin to realize just how little you know and how many things are actually possible.


======================
Blur
----------------------

Knowledge can be flawed, as was already examined. If we disagree, we obviously are not sharing the same knowledge or the same perspective. One of us might be wrong. As discussed in Limitation of Knowledge, the definition of knowledge is the possession of ideas that one believes to be true. A translator (in other words, a perspective), is required to interpret these ideas. A person does not have knowledge of an apple if they cannot recognize one when they sense it (come into contact with it, touch it, taste it, smell it, etc.). They person has an idea of an apple that they believe to be true in reality. For those of us who can see, an apple is usually a red, smooth, rounded fruit with a stem. Apples vary in shape and size, but the general idea remains the same.

There is an inconsistency with the idea and reality. Though consistency is intended to be the proof of an idea (that is, what makes an idea knowledge), it ends up countering the definition. To perceive what I mean, consider an apple being morphed beyond recognition. The apple could be elongated from top to bottom for its morphing. The question of key importance is, At what point does the object cease to be an apple? When does it become merely a cylindrical fruit, or does it ever lose its apple nature? If you believe apples are forever apples, then consider it in your digestive tract or just consider an entirely different object. There are multiple examples like this that could demonstrate the same point. One example: What is the transition state of a person when they go from jogging to running? Or when does the jogging begin to become a run? Or is it always a run just less so than could be? The essence of each question asks for a boundary, a limitation, a definition. There are disagreements on this, but the fact is, it is easy for a person to distinguish someone in a full-fledged run from someone who is simply jogging. And yet, people disagree on this as well. The fact is, knowledge is limited to such definitions. And yet, we don't have a definition of "jogging" or "running" that is consistent amongst all people. What we do possess are similar enough ideas that we can communicate. That is why you can understand what I am saying to a certain degree despite the fact that you neither share my perspective nor possess the exact same idea, or at least, that's what I assume.


======================
Nowlos
----------------------

Sandstorm

A definition of knowledge was presented in Limitation of Knowledge that seems to be the most common one shared by people, but the definition is described in such a way that only the current writer of this document understands its intended meaning. (In the future, I will have probably forgotten the meaning of that phrase, even if I know the principle behind it.) Rather than altering this definition, I propose letting it (or whatever definition of knowledge you currently do have) remain unchanged. I do this not only to avoid conflict with redefinition of the word, but more appropriately because of the limitation of knowledge.

Psychology has greatly assisted us in understanding the human mind. Through it, we have studied what appear to be cases of insanity, that is, when a person is "out of touch" with reality. In some cases, a person can experience peculiar sensations: feeling, seeing, and hearing things that no one else is, and are thus considered by "normal" people as not representative of reality. However, we find that "normal" people are susceptible to experiencing similar delusions when traveling through the desert without haven eaten for many days. Considering that there is a possibility of everything, it is possible that humanity itself is delusional, or rather, believing things about reality that may be entirely constructs of our minds. The phrase "your mind can play tricks on you" points out the fact that there is a disconnect between our mind and reality. That is, when I see an apple, an apple could be in front of me or I could be dreaming of it. Nevertheless, I see the apple. This brings up an important point. But first, turn your attention to two-dimensional art.


Influence of Art

The realm of art has presented an important aspect about reality: it can be represented in two dimensions. If reality can be represented on a surface with two dimensions, then it should be obviously possible that reality itself might be two-dimensional. Why not? I have yet to find a reasonable answer to this question, even though I continue to believe in three-dimensional space. Reality, regardless of whether reality is two-dimensional or three-dimensional, it appears to act in a manner that we believe is three-dimensional. This, however, does not prove that reality is three-dimensional. Why should it? Why should it not? There seem to be no identifiable boundaries other than our own definitions of things, which may or may not be boundaries, depending on your perspective of reality.

Admittedly, one could assume that the two-dimensional nature of things is invalid, for even "two dimensional" works of art are conveyed through mediums possessing three dimensions. But that is not what is of interest. What we are interested in is the nature of the image to appear as though it had a dimensional aspect that it does not have. If someone drew an apple on a page and "made it look realistic", the apple would appear as though it were as wide in every respect as every other apple even though we believe it is flat. It is this aspect that we find of most interest and that to which have called attention in our comparison of two-dimensional art to reality.


Nowlos

So far, effort has been made to draw to your attention the possibility that the world may not be as you believe it to be. Everything could be just a myth of your mind. Admittedly, this is a discomforting feeling and many people I have spoken with will outright deny it: a response that is expected, especially considering that the human desire to know truth makes anything that would suggest they are far from it seem undesirable. Why even accept such ideas? Doesn't everything work anyways? Once again, we return to the idea of consistency: if something is repeated enough times with the same result, it is deemed as truth or being representative of reality.

What is of interest in this study, then, is not knowledge, but something far more fundamental than knowledge. Something that every human possessing the faculty for is capable of having - a starting ground. In other words, what is being sought by epistemologists and like-minded philosophers: something we "truly know" beyond the shadow of a doubt: truth. We are interested in possessing truth, but knowledge may or may not give it to us. Precisely, we want some connection that relates our ideas to reality. But all we have are the faculty we have been given: our senses.

As a philosopher searching for truth, I am not interested in sub-conscious knowledge - only in conscious knowledge. What I am not aware of is not of interest since I cannot sense it consciously. The good philosophers reading this will note that I have skipped a great deal of debate concerning sub-conscious knowledge and its role. I have done so precisely for the reason of avoiding contestation. If something can be reasonably contested then obviously that something is not an undeniable source of truth. This is particularly true for a blind man: he can deny that anyone else can see simply for the reason that he cannot see. What then is of most interest is that of the senses. Those with the senses cannot reasonably deny them. Granted, it is true that one can deny anything. But to deny something reasonably, the claim of reality that their denial makes must be consistent with reality. Recognize too there is a difference between denying an idea in name and denying an idea in concept. For instance, if someone told their friend that apples were square, orange boxes, the friend would be in disbelief if they believe that apples are round, red fruit. However, if the person were referring to orange boxes by the name of "apple", then whenever they say "apple", to them it means an orange box. I have discovered that this example can be misinterpreted easily, despite the fact that it is closely tied with the idea of different languages. A pattern of sounds may refer to something completely different in one language than it does in another. However, it seems people are more willing to accept this idea only in the context of comparing linguistics than they are in a simple example in their own language. Nevertheless, the problem does occur: various words take on various meanings as they are used. In search of truth, then there must be some way of avoiding having to put it in words, given that words are, as has been shown, rather vague in their definitions.

The point of presenting these limitations on "knowledge", as shown in the ambiguity of definitions words and faultiness of assumptions in perceptions of reality, was to demonstrate that the only truth we can possess (in the raw, undeniable form that philosophers want) is from our senses, specifically through the faculty that bring them about. Note that a person does not need eyes in order to see, but if one does not possess some faculty to bring about sight, then one cannot "see". In the same way, a person cannot hear if they do not have faculty for bringing about the sense, but they do not need ears to hear. By faculty, I do not mean an external mechanism that attaches directly to your brain. Your brain is perfectly capable of generating its own idea of sound. I wish to call to your attention the specific experiences associated with these senses. The experience a person receives from one sense is different from what is experienced with another sense. No one makes the mistake of believing that they heard the sunset when they merely watched the sun setting. The experience is entirely different. One can listen to sounds and visualize the things associated with them, but that visualization is nevertheless distinct from those sounds.

To describe not only the distinction between the experiences from the senses, but also to relate them to truth without conveying the notion that they may be flawed as knowledge is flawed, I have devised the word "Nowlos". Nowlos is similar to knowledge in that it speaks about reality. In contrast to knowledge, it does not imply the possibility of error. Nowlos refers to the experience of each sense. We nowlos that we see, even if we do not know what it is that we see. For example, I may be observing a red apple. I do not necessarily know that what I am seeing is indeed an apple or that it is real. I could be dreaming, I might be staring at a picture, or I could be mistaken about what an apple is (that is, the object in front of me is not the same as what I believe to be true of an apple). I do, however, see an area of red in my vision. I consider this splotch of red to be an apple because it has the shape I expect of an apple whether it be one or not. I nowlos what I see: I see a splotch of red. I cannot make any claim about the splotch of red other than that it is in my vision. The same can be said for that of smell: I nowlos the scent of apple, even if I do not know from what the scent originated. The principle carries over to the other senses, including smell, touch, and taste. There is question over whether we have more senses, particularly time or spiritual sense. Some have contested the sense of time, claiming that we are merely in a constant state. However, to state such is a contradiction in itself: which state are we possessing? Surely what I will learn in five days is not known now, otherwise it would be the time after five days. We are aware of the passing of time, that is, we have faculty for it (or at least some of us do), and thus we nowlos it: we nowlos the change in time, even if we do not know its rate or even what to label it. This brings up an important point: one does not have to have a label for a sense in order to nowlos something from utilizing that sense. That utilization provides nowlos. A person can see even if they do not have a word for "sight". A person can hear and nowlos what they hear even if they have no word or concept of hearing.

The definition of nowlos is deeper than as first presented. Nowlos refers to incontestable experience. For example, we experience differences in sounds. The key of "A" is obviously different than the key of "B" unless you are tone-deaf. Furthermore, it is true that the color of red is different than the color of green unless you are color blind. When the two keys are played together, a non-tone-deaf person can nowlos that there are two different sounds even if they do not know which sounds. This ability diminishes as the two sounds are brought closer in frequency. Until they are the same frequency, a person can nowlos the difference even if they do not notice it. There is thus a difference between noticing (or being aware of something) and nowlos. Where the former is what you can consciously detect, the latter is truth that you possess.

Given that nowlos speaks of truth and reality, there ought to be some questions arising in your mind.

First, what about those who are insane, or out of touch with reality, particularly those who see things that no one else sees. In such cases, each of these people does nowlos what they see. That is truth. However, what they nowlos will probably not help them outside of their bodies. (I can conceive of ways that it would, but all of which are special cases.) In other words, they do not nowlos anything in the world outside of the confines of their mind. Of course, neither do we, but at least we seem to have a functional, consistent model of what's going on.

The second question you might ask is if we have other senses. If we are not consciously aware of the sense, we probably do not know anything from it even if we nowlos it. There are two senses that I did not discuss, 1) because discussion of them is ambiguous, 2) because they are not necessarily senses in the ordinary sense of the word, no pun intended. One of these two is that of thought. We nowlos that we think, even if we do not know what we are thinking about. We do not have to visualize things, we merely are connecting ideas. We do not have to understand anything about those ideas; we just happen to nowlos that there are distinct things passing through our minds. These things we call "ideas". The other "sense" that we may possess is that of another realm. We may have many such senses, and I leave room for that possibility, but we are not as aware of them as we are the aforementioned. We do not nowlos that there are other senses, much less know that there are, but if we do possess them, we can nowlos things from them.

One last thing to note is that a sense can be lost. When such is the case, one can no longer obtain nowlos from that sense.


Extending Nowlos

What if one could nowlos the physical, that is, not just nowlos that they see and nowlos that they see color but nowlos what it is they see. This is not only beyond merely knowing aspects of an object, such as its dimensions or whether it tangible, but beyond asking for an innate sense of knowledge of an object. Someone already beat me to the best word for the term. It is called "grokking", though I'm afraid this particular word is not understood the same way that I have in mind. Nevertheless, it generally conveys the idea: that one possesses the raw truth about something, not merely an understanding of it.

Philosophical Coverage

I began exploring philosophy at age 18. It spawned out of my desire to prove the existence of God beyond the shadow of a doubt. That turned out to be a silly idea for a multitude of reasons, primarily beginning with the problem of defining "God", which isn't possible if one wishes to speak of the real one, and ending with the fact that nothing can be proven. I am not, however, agnostic - if I was to even accept agnosticism on the basis of philosophy, I would feel compelled to go the whole extent of denying the elements of reality were any bit distinguishable (which they are, as I intend to explain).

Epistemology is a very interesting subject. Yes, anyone can appreciate it once they understand it. However, I have yet to see someone put it in layman's terms. Therefore, I bestow on myself that task. This post will begin what will probably be a long series of posts to explain epistemology in understandable terms. As you read, you will probably have objections, but hopefully, you will have more questions, a sign that you are actually understanding what I'm saying and not just basing your interpretation of my words off of your first impression.

For speaking about epistemology, I've chosen a simple outline. It is important that, in examining my posts, you follow the logic pattern in the order of the outline. Note that by no means does this say that the subsequent posts will be in this order. Rather, I will select from these topics and proceed to develop what I've said about them. I would prefer that you "get the gist" of what I'm saying than trying to remember my exact words since the way I phrase things will probably not be how you are accustomed to seeing them (and the idea you perceive after reading each sentence will probably not be what I had in mind when I wrote it).

The outline I have chosen is as follows:
> Introduction to the topic
> Philosophical Chaos
> Practical applications
> What we can trust

Introduction to the topic
Articles in this category are meant to begin explaining philosophy and epistemology. Commonly-used terminology will be explained. Furthermore, the origins of philosophy (including examinations of ancient philosophical ideas, how they may have been developed, and what their implications are) will be presented.

Philosophical Chaos
Articles in this category are designed to explain the concept of what I call "philosophical chaos", an idea that describes the lack of truth and definition of things. It accounts for why proof of things is impossible and arguments can go either way. The implications of philosophical chaos and the consequences of its implications will be explored in articles discussing it.

Practical applications
The articles will attempt to present the practical applications of epistemology and philosophical chaos. These articles may also cover the abuses of epistemology, including both how people speak negatively about it and how people have misused it.

What we can trust
These articles will present ideas against having a purely existentialistic or nihilistic point of view. They will also present ideas that counter the applicability of philosophical chaos to the real world. In other words, there is such a thing as absolute truth. The concept of nowlos will be explored but only as much as it can be.

Loving needs reason

In considering the idea of love, I developed various arguments that defended the idea of love as requiring reason. That is, a person has to have a reason for loving someone else. By this, I am not pointing out that people's existence is the reason. Though indeed that is true, I am primarily concerned with the role of the human free will and its dependence on reason. The arguments themselves are not flawless, but they are food-for-thought and you would do well to consider them.

The various arguments about this subject are fairly unorganized in thought, and are presented here in chronological order of their creation:

====================

6:47 PM, March 23, 2010
Some people (it is reasonable to assume many) think that you must love people as an end and not a means to an end. That is to say, you must love a person just as a person and not for anything that you will receive out of them. Certainly this is true if what you are receiving is a material gain, for in such cases, you do not truly love the person; you desire what they give you. However, the reasoning cannot be taken much further than this. Ask the question, "What is it that I love about the person?" You cannot love a person just for a person's sake, just as you cannot love a rock for a rock's sake. Are you to love them because they are a person? Can you love a rock because it is a rock? When you open the door for someone, are you doing it because they are a person, or out of habit, or for another reason? Another reason might be that you are trying to please God. Why would you try to please God? - Because He would give you joy in return. What is it then that makes you love other people?
If I told myself one day that I was going to love all the people around me every minute, I know that I would fail miserably. Why would I fail? It is not that the task is too difficult as much as it is daunting. Nor would I fail because I did not make some commitment in my head that says I will love people. Over the course of the day, my focus shifts, my vision changes, and I am no longer looking at people as objects to love, but rather, I am trying to please myself. It turns out that we are always trying to gain pleasure. There are various means by which we gain it, none of which include simply loving a person for a person's sake. In fact, we gain pleasure from caring for people because God gives us joy when we do so. Our mind senses this boost and encourages us to return to such tasks. If we were not lead by this desire for pleasure, there would be no reason for us to do anything. However, God made us this way, not so that the world could be flooded by selfish people, but because He wanted to be the ultimate source of joy.
"Falling in love" is quite different from loving a person. This sort of "love" belongs to a type of love that finds pleasure (usually aesthetically) from another person. The person has attributes or characteristics from which you can obtain pleasure. That does not mean that you "fall in love" with that person. The "love" that you seem to "fall" into is this love that you not only gain pleasure from other people's attributes but also that your feelings are more tangled up in your relationship with them. That means that interactions with them (such as simply seeing them, or thinking of their smile, regardless of whether actual or psychological) are stimuli for the mind that give you pleasure.
There are two important things that must be distinguished between. The first is the emotional, and the second is the sensual. Let the former (that is, emotional), pertain to the soul. Emotional feelings are the inner feelings that you have inside your soul, regardless of your current state. Sensual feelings, on the other hand, refers to what the brain senses and encourages the soul to command it to seek. Sensual feelings arise pertaining to things such as pain and sex. In response to pain, your brain generally takes the initiative and commands your appendages to retract or move in such a direction and speed that would decrease the intensity of, if not obliterate, the signal originating from the nerves. The same is true with sex. If you know yourself well enough, you can easily tell when your body desires sex even though nothing else pertaining to sex or sex stimuli has come to mind. Emotional feelings are independent of sensual feelings. For example, a man might be suffering for a cause he cares for and feel emotionally happy about it even though sensually he may be being persecuted, injured with techniques beyond his wildest dreams. The opposite can be true: the man might be suffering emotionally because he is doing something that happens to be giving him sensual pleasure. The most ironic idea about this system is that both affect the decision of the individual because the sensual pleasure may lead to emotional pleasure. However, it is only the idea of the potential emotional pleasure that a person thinks they will find in something that drives them towards seeking it.





9:30 PM, March 28, 2010
It is quite possible that, being made in the image of God, we as humans are given some of God's own selfless love from the beginning and can thereby love people without actually having a reason to love them. Loving people, at least to a small degree, would be a part of our nature. If we believe in God, He gives us enough more of His selfless love to share. However, we have to desire that love or He will not give it to us. However, how can we desire such love? It must be by some pleasure we get from loving already. In such a case, it would be our selfless love, given to us by God, that causes us to do something, and in return, our souls are given pleasure that they desire to perpetually renew as time goes on. One way our souls can do this is by continuing to love in that simple manner that we started loving. The other way is by asking God to grant us more love.
Is this really the way it works?





10:50 PM, March 30, 2010
You can practically make happiness spawn anywhere, in a manner of speaking. That is, you can decide to think of something as a source of pleasure. Now, although it will not necessarily be a source of sensual pleasure, it will, however, be a source of emotional pleasure. Emotional pleasure is slightly harder to pursue because of the body naturally desires sensual pleasure. It is the free will of the soul that decides whether a man will try to gain emotional pleasure or sensual pleasure or both. Nevertheless, the emotional pleasure does not always if ever cause the body to provide itself with an instantaneous boost of pleasure that acts as motivation for someone to pursue the source of the pleasure, whether it be an action or thing to acquire, etc. Of course, if your soul is a slave to sin, it becomes quite difficult to imagine emotional pleasure in good deeds.



9:48 AM, April 12, 2010
When you are relaxed and in your "comfort zone" (hypothetically, the place on earth you are happy most of the time), it is quite obvious that, when asked to go to immediately go to the funeral of friend, of which no one is attending, you will no doubt be quite reluctant. You may not mention your reluctance, since that would cause people to judge you and you certainly do not like that. However, at the moment, you are in your comfort zone and could think of hundreds of reasons why not to go to the funeral. You could say, "There's no point. My friend is dead. I cannot resurrect him." On top of that, you would add other excuses such as, "His own family is not even going to be there" or "I do not know anyone going to the funeral, so what good would my presence do? I would not be a comforter to anyone." Regardless of your list of excuses, should you not mention them for fear of being reproached, you would no opt for remaining in your comfort zone. On the other hand, should it be that you had just finished a battle in which your friend had died, be he courageous or a coward, you would (after learning of your friend's death), if you are of noble character, go immediately to the body of your friend and mourn for him. Following that, you would make funeral arrangements.
The question that I wish to pose is this: Do these two examples lead to different conclusions about why we do things? When ethics and morals demand something of us, their demands are usually not accompanied by instructions ("Here's how to do") but only by commands ("Do"). This allots a person freedom to go about fulfilling such moral commands by whatever means is necessary. The question arises, however, do morals ask us to be concerned with motives? A person who "selflessly" devotes their life to others is highly esteemed and said to be virtuous or moral, but what is their motivating reason for "selflessly" giving away their life? Surely one does not automatically give one's own life away? Given that the freewill acts like a scale which is tipped one way or another by randomness and the various things in life, such as sinful desire and God's grace, man only does what will give him pleasure. Or is there something else? Do morals demand truly selflessly giving one's life away? That is, is a person not permitted by morals to receive pleasure after he does a good deed?
Perhaps the terms need to be more well defined. Good deeds are called that because generally they are voluntary actions that are intended to benefit people though such actions are not commanded by law. Morals encompass both "good deeds" and the laws that each person has in his or her heart and mind. On far end of the positive (desirable) end of the spectrum, there is "selfless" giving, that is, giving (e.g. caring for the sick, feeding the poor, and spending time for good causes) but without expecting a return.
How can, or is it even possible for, a human to selflessly give? Our morals may or may not require this "selfless" giving, but we feel inclined to do the deeds it is associated with, such as feeding the poor and caring for the sick. The acts themselves do not necessarily have to be acts that are completely selfless giving; you can have a reason for being charitable. However, what makes us inclined to do such acts in the first place? Surely with a sinful nature, man is (at least initially) inclined to only do evil and think selfishly. Yet something happens in a man that allows him to make such free acts of charity. Furthermore, those acts are often accompanied by a joy that survives the moment and dwells in the memory of a man, where it might be extracted at some random occasion and please the man for another moment before being returned to the shelf. This joy is somehow obtained by honest charitable works (that is, deeds that did not require an evil thing be done first) and remains undiscovered lest we cease ignoring the small voice in the back of our heads that encourage us do a charitable act. Note that the charitable act is not the same as the selfless act, for in the charitable act, we receive a burst (short or long, great or small) of joy that remains ingrained in our minds so long as the memories of the good acts we had done remain. Selfless acts, by their very name, remove the motivation for completing them. It would require someone's freewill to act contrary to the nature it was intended, or at least it would require that the human be controlled or enticed into such actions by a higher power.
When Jesus visited the tomb of his friend Lazarus, He had to first leave (what might be called) His "comfort zone". When He came, He wept, and the people said, "See how He (Jesus) loved him (Lazarus)." In this actual scenario, Jesus, who is God and does not need to obtain pleasure from anyone, weeps for Lazarus as though He has lost something of great importance. Indeed, Lazarus had died, and the Son of God was showing to the people God's love for every single individual. God does not will that even one of His created persons should be lost. Jesus is not only God, but also fully man. The human freewill of Jesus was submissive to the divine freewill of Jesus, the Son of God. To be fully human, the freewill of Jesus' human side must have had motivation. Indeed, there was great motivation promised to the human freewill of Jesus by the divine freewill of Jesus that He Himself would be taken up into heaven and worshiped as King and God. This brings up an important point: the difference between why Jesus went to the tomb and why any other man would go. Jesus goes out of command of His own divine freewill, not because the loss of Lazarus would decrease the pleasure that He would receive from him (for indeed, to gain pleasure from another human and mourn their loss because of the loss of your own pleasure is purely human). But when God enters into the heart of a man, does not He shape the man such that the man can love others as God loves others? When man goes to a funeral, if he is of noble heart (one influenced by the grace of God), then it is quite likely that he goes out of love for the man and not purely because of the loss of potential pleasure for himself.
Within relationships, there may exist a spiritual bond between the two people involved in a relationship such that, though they may gain no pleasure from each other and even never see, speak to, or hear of each other again, they still feel obligated to preserve that relationship. When one of the two of them breaks that relationship by deciding not to be friends with the other person, they feel a bitter flavor in their decision, depending on how well developed the relationship was as well as the kind of relationship it was. What this possibly indicates, if it exists, is that God wants them to preserve their relationship, and He has made the spiritual or physical mind such that, within the bond of friendship, some pleasure is intertwined and some is transmitted along it.





11:49 PM, October 27, 2010
Loving needs reason. It is impossible for a person not to love for a reason. Furthermore, the free will must consent to the reason to bring forth love. Various individuals may state that they are capable of loving without a reason, but this is not so. Consider what is going on in their subconscious mind. If a person loves another person, they feel a sense of happiness from it. It is this happiness or expectation of something they desire that gives them reason to do such an action. The reasoning is the same whether they begin to love in order to test and see whether they will receive what they so desire (evidenced by a sense of pleasure, which is what they hope for) or they love already expecting that what they do will result in something they desire, perhaps a sense of pleasure. If a person does not have to have a reason for loving, then people would naturally love, but we can see from reality that this is certainly not the case.

Considering the requirement of reason, loving is an act of the will. It is not as though one is driven solely by God or natural instinct towards such. Otherwise, there would be no reasonable explanation as to why people do not love. If loving required no choice, people would naturally choose to love. The counter-argument would be best described in an analogy of a ball rolling down a hill: the ball continues to roll down the hill unless stopped by an external force. In the same way, people would be naturally loving unless there were a reason not to be. On the contrary, this is irrational in light of the definition of love (considering love perseveres through struggles and difficulties and reasons not to remain faithful or loyal, so why would naturally-loving people invent reasons not to love?). Furthermore, the definition of love is external to human beings. If it is only relative to human beings, we can define it however we want and define it in such a way as to encompass the actions of all humans. However, if we define it extrinsic to humans and exclusive of some human activity, then it is no longer an innate quality but is, with respect to its physical manifestation in human beings, a category of actions. Hence, nothing binds us to automatic obedience to the rules that define this category.

The thought escaped me

The thought I had just escaped me.
Technically speaking, this is just a cliche that lacks the proper meaning, especially since no thought can technically "escape" unless "escape" is a word defined in such a way as to incorporate into its meaning the types of events that may involve something becoming non-existent or suppressed in the confines of mental storage. By "non-existent" I mean that the "thought" itself has dissolved, so-to-speak, amongst the psychological processes occurring in a person's mind. Certainly the electrons and metaphysical particles that once composed the "thought" may still be in existence, but their organization is now such that it can no longer be deemed as a whole to generate the same results as the original thought.

Is this important? - That question will be answered much later for sure.