Assorted Notes

MONDAY, 6 JUNE 2005

18:57

Identity is expressed in the language, clothing and furniture of the time and environment in which we conduct our existence: my answer to the question “Is this who I am nowadays?” after feeling a little embarrassed in a Working House about the idea that certain decorative items will look good in my apartment.

[Makes one think again: Who would you be if you were born in, say, Moscow? Or, who would you be if you were born in Paris in 1871? Or, who would you be if you were born in 1771 as the eighth child of a poor peasant whose family is trying to eke out an existence on a piece of land on the outskirts of Bratislava?]

20:20

In the end 99.9% of the people on Earth comes and goes, and they either contribute in their own way to the maintenance and growth of civilisation, or they contribute to its destruction. Of only 0.01% of people and perhaps even less it will be said in hindsight that they were exceptional, superior to most of their peers, even that they were “destined” for important roles.

21:01

What she has been GIVEN manifests strength. What she has so far CHOSEN manifests character.

22:20

Everyone wants to know they are important. The idea that you are of no importance to anyone – neither man nor beast – is for most people too much to bear. How do people affirm their value? How do they make up for it when they become convinced that their value is insignificant?

WEDNESDAY, 8 JUNE 2005

Other people have their own stories, their own aches and pains, and have undergone other sufferings. They deem their own stories valuable and as valid parts of the Great Puzzle.

I also have my own stories, my own aches and insecurities, and I have faced my own challenges. Like other people’s stories, my own story is a valid and unique piece of the Puzzle.

Since everyone’s stories have validity and unique value for them, it is foolish to compare other people’s stories with your own and then to cast doubt on the value and validity of someone else’s stories.

Why do people have the desire to do so in any case? Is it because they are uncertain about the validity and the value of their own lives? Do they reckon that they will be more convinced of the importance, the validity, the value of their own lives if they question the validity and the value of other people’s lives? (And how often do I make myself guilty of this ridiculous behaviour?)

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 1 JUNE 2005

15:41

The feudal order and the organised societies that followed the feudal order are good illustrations of how one is born with certain information – never anchored in concrete, but according to which people nevertheless live out their lives.

A similar situation exists today. Unless you are born with excellent – indeed, superior – pedigree and other information in terms of position, wealth and prescribed role and function – you fall in the group in which most people find themselves: where your position and your value for all practical purposes amount by default to next to nothing in the Greater View of Things, or Only of Value for Friends and Family.

What it comes down to is that by the time you are a functioning adult, you sort into one of three groups: a) next to nothing in the Greater View of Things, Only of Value for Friends and Family; b) role, function and value that extend beyond your Circle of Friends and Family; c) next to nothing in the Greater View of Things, and of No Value for Any Living Being. (Train arrives. The point: if it is not given, make it a reality.)

16:08

Statement: Some people’s lives only have value for friends and family, and by chance possibly for a few outside this circle. (Let us call it for the moment Type A.)

Statement: Some people’s lives have value for family and friends, and by their own will also for a few outside this circle. (Type B)

Statement: Some people’s lives have value for family and friends, and by their own will also for people they will never personally meet, in places that will never be visited by this person. Thus, his or her value exceeds the time and place where his or her existence takes place. (Type C)

Statement: Some people’s lives have value for family and friends, and by their own will for people they will never personally meet, in places they will never visit; these individuals’ names will be recorded in the official political history of a nation. (Type D)

Statement: Same as Type D, but to a significant extent because of given factors rather than own will, for example, the crown prince of the British royal family. (Type E)

Note: Some Types A accept their fairly limited value. Others murmur, but never actually do anything to change it (can therefore be called, respectively Type A and Type A2).

Statement: Some people’s lives have no value for friends and family (possibly because of the absence of the person in the lives of family and former friends, and/or the absence of friends and family in the person’s life), and also has no value for any human or animal. (Type A2)

FRIDAY, 3 JUNE 2005

01:45

I don’t write often enough that she is wonderful, that my life without her was dull, and that a life without her knowing that she exists is unthinkable. […] I hope indeed this is the end of a very long road, and the beginning of one that will prove to be much longer.

19:10

[…]

Still I wonder:

Should life be enjoyed,

or should life be utilised productively to achieve certain results,

or should life be applied to the realisation of a purpose that transcends given time and place?

Or all three, perhaps?

19:25

Young Taiwanese gang members are among the most conservative members of society. They obey their masters; they do what they’re told; they don’t question anything, and they obligingly wear the same uniforms every day.

[The above is my observation. I have never spent any time in a Taiwanese criminal organisation, so I wouldn’t know how many young members actually rebel against the old guard, how often orders are ignored, and how often plans are questioned. About the uniforms, I am pretty sure, though.]

______________________

WEDNESDAY, 25 MAY 2005

12:46

An important piece of information about me as writer: I am not really a storyteller; I’m a maker of points, an observer, a critic and one who offers suggestions.

[19/06/15: Not that it’s necessarily important, but storytellers are usually popular guests and are generally regarded as good people to spend time with. Makers of points, on the other hand, annoy many people; observers are often regarded with suspicion (“What does that guy see when he looks at me?”); critics are often ignored or swatted away like the proverbial gadfly; and makers of suggestions are often dismissed as unwelcome and their suggestions as unsolicited.]

15:44

Two types of people:

Type one: “I am 25 (or 35) years old. I have built up a life for myself with which I am happy, and in a place that I like. I want to maintain this life, in this place. I certainly don’t want to go backwards, but if things don’t change very much or even improve at all, that is okay. I am in a good place.”

Type two: “I am 25 (or 35) years old. I have so far built up a life for myself that is good, but I am convinced that it is within my grasp to pursue a better life – one that is sustainable and does not reek of greed or extravagance. I am aware that there are people on this planet who dream of the kind of life that I now call my own. But I also believe that if it is within the reach of these people to attain a life that is better than my present life, they too would not stop where I am now. I believe in sustainability. I hate greed. And I think if something better is within your reach, you have to work as hard as you can to realise it for yourself.”

21:14

I reckon human beings … or before I get stuck in definitions of what is meant by “human being”, let me be concrete: I consist of two parts. One part is mortal and in turn consists of body, consciousness, personality and identity (given and/or self-defined). The other part is immortal. Because I have command of a very limited range of vocabulary, I will call this latter part “soul”. These two parts are interwoven for the duration of my earthly existence.

What the purpose of this combination is, I do not know. How this combination came into existence, I also do not know (except for the biological part).

I am both parts and yet, if my body stops functioning and my consciousness is destroyed, I cease to exist – even if the other part of me continues to exist.

My earthly existence, the choices I make and the results I achieve in my life, have a dramatic impact on my immortal part – another illustration of how closely the two parts are connected.

The connection of the two parts is indeed something to be discovered – this discovery may even be considered a goal in itself.

What is the difference between this belief and the Christian version (influenced by the pre-Christian philosopher Plato)? The Christian believes that the body is mortal and that the spirit (or soul, self, consciousness, personality, or “inner being”) is immortal. I split the “spirit” or “inner part” in two – mortal and immortal.

I will henceforth refer to the above as the 25 May 2005 Declaration of Faith.

THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2005

What I am therefore saying is that the “inner” consists of two parts: mortal consciousness and time and place specific identity, and immortal X (sometimes called “spirit” or “soul”).

In my opinion this is a radical departure from Christian dogma.

A Christian, who has some dogmatic knowledge and understanding, may inform me: “This is not what we as Christians believe.”

To which I will reply: “Jesus was not a philosopher. If it were important to him that people got this philosophical foundation right, he would have given his disciples proper lectures on the subject. In such a case he would have preached less about love and compassion and spent more time making sure everyone has the correct understanding of all the philosophical concepts. If Jesus did not preach philosophy, who did? Why are Christians so convinced of the mortal body and the immortal soul? Has it perhaps to do with the Church Fathers, who were fortunate enough to be schooled in Greek philosophy?”

Shall my companion retort: “Maybe it was so intended. Maybe it was the predestined role of the Church Fathers with their strong philosophical background to explain what Christ – a carpenter with fisherman disciples – did not explain.”

Answer: “Perhaps. Or perhaps it has to do with the First Council of Nicaea in the fourth century during which Constantine became impatient and pressed delegates to come to a conclusion regarding doctrine that had been tabled? Maybe that was also part of the predestined plan. Or perhaps my understanding is closer to the truth? What is the real value of the difference?”

___________

In each of Western and Eastern Christianity, four Fathers are called the Great Church Fathers, generally influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and important church leaders.

Western Church:

Ambrose (340–397): educated in Rome, studied literature, law, and rhetoric

Jerome (347–420): studied rhetoric, philosophy, Latin and some Greek

Augustine (354–430): developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, employing a variety of methods and perspectives; helped formulate the doctrine of original sin

Gregory the Great (540–604): like most young men of his position in Roman society, Gregory was well educated, learning grammar, rhetoric, the sciences, literature, and law

Eastern Church:

Basil (c. 329–379): an influential theologian who supported the Nicene Creed and opposed the heresies of the early Christian church. His ability to balance his theological convictions with his political connections made Basil a powerful advocate for the Nicene position.

Athanasius (c. 296–373): Athanasius’s earliest work, Against the Heathen – On the Incarnation (written before 319), bears traces of Origenist Alexandrian thought (such as repeatedly quoting Plato and using a definition from Aristotle’s Organon). Athanasius was also familiar with the theories of various philosophical schools, and in particular with the developments of Neo-Platonism.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – c. 389): As a classically trained orator and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church. Gregory made a significant impact on the shape of Trinitarian theology among both Greek- and Latin-speaking theologians.

John Chrysostom (347–407): John began his education under the pagan teacher Libanius, from whom he acquired the skills for a career in rhetoric, and a love of the Greek language and literature. He is known for his moral preaching and his denunciation of abuse of authority.

For more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

FRIDAY, 27 MAY 2005

The Particular I

and

the Universal X

______________________

MONDAY, 23 MAY 2005

15:29

Some people want more than what is given to them; others know of more, but they are satisfied with the good things that are within their immediate reach.

18:24

What is transformation?

I look at myself and I see a functioning adult. When the whistle blows in the morning, I also start jogging along, at my own pace, and at the end of the day when the survivors are counted … well, so far I have been counted every time. If survival is the primary consideration, I make it as a working adult in the time and place where I have chosen to live out my existence.

However, various factors play a role in my conviction that I can do better, that I can live better, function better, show better results at the end of every day’s existence. The steps I decide on after careful consideration … that is transformation.

[19/06/15: To decide on steps is not transformation; actively starting to implement the steps can however be seen as the start of transformation.]

TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2005

Knowing that you have rustled the grass does not mean that the snake is not real.

* * *

When you do not appear, you do not feel embarrassed; you do not need to explain yourself; you do not need to apologise for aspects of your life or the state of your living space.

The benefits of an intimate, honest and serious relationship are well-known. I simply want to mention that there are advantages to not appearing – that is, to be alone.

______________________

TUESDAY, 17 MAY 2005

To be on your own has both advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages include feeling truly isolated and forsaken at times, as well as feeling bored and frustrated with your own company. In times of intense loneliness, people tend to think of a relationship as heavenly paradise – with perhaps a little argument here and there to make it realistic.

Of course, an intimate relationship also has advantages and disadvantages. The benefits, as might be expected, have a lot to do with the disadvantages of being alone. The disadvantages of an intimate relationship, on the other hand, are related to the benefits of solitude.

At the end you have to decide for yourself whether the benefits of an intimate relationship – love, support, companionship – outweigh the disadvantages, including continual appearance, conflicting habits and preferences, being generous when you don’t really feel like being generous, and higher financial expectations; also whether the disadvantages of being on your own eventually outweigh the benefits.

THURSDAY, 19 MAY 2005

One of two things needs to be considered when it comes to having children: a) We want to have a child, so let’s do our best, and b) pregnancy is already a reality, so what are we going to do?

The above must be taken into account in remarks about what motivates people to have children.

Another thing: I have much to say about parents who have children to fill holes in their lives, to satisfy their own emotional or psychological needs. The point is that in both the above cases the person cannot exactly claim that the child was conceived for the sake of the child – simply because the child does not yet exist! (More correct in the first case.)

It thus follows that adults, when they consider having a child, naturally do so for their own reasons and to satisfy their own needs. What else?

I-now have a life of my own. There is still an emotional umbilical cord between me and my parents, but I have to a large extent abandoned my parents’ ideas of an adult life and even their convictions, and have become my own man (so to speak). I too was conceived 34 years ago by two adults who had wanted to satisfy their own needs in the process of conception (I mean emotional needs rather than physical – yet it’s also true that a child is conceived in the first place because two adults want to and have to satisfy their physical needs.)

One cannot escape the reality that children are conceived because adults have their own needs to satisfy – whether physical, psychological or emotional needs, and of course often a combination of these needs.

______________________