Conflct, and the Psychology of Humanity

If I've learned anything from life, it's that people don't always get on. That may strike one as a ridiculously obvious thing to say, but it really shouldn't be. It's understandable, in terms of evolution and survival of the fittest, for conflict to arise from a primal desire to retain monogamy of a mate, or a sense of possession over your belongings and wellbeing, but more and more I notice utterly pointless conflicts arising. When no conceivable, logical or even justifiable reason can be supplied for standing in arms against a fellow human, it still occurs, again and again.

So what is the reason? Often, I and a good few psychologists (I suspect) would say, is that often the person themselves cannot explain why, and resort to petty excuses that they 'think' are the reasons to allow them to continue. They shroud themselves in a shell of fabricated justification, not in a malicious manner, but simply because they're just as confused as to their feelings as anyone else, and find alternative explanations.

It's a shame really. No real good can come of such irrelevant conflict. It causes grief left, right and centre for the two parties involved and any others between and around them. Most importantly, perhaps, nothing is gained. No material or emotional satisfaction can be accrued in good conscience.

This is yet another reason tagged onto the long list of similar items explaining my long held neutrality obsession. It's the perfect standing, as far as I can see. If you don't stand against anyone, it often becomes infuriatingly hard for someone to stand against you, and you are free to amble peacefully through life.

I can only imagine what life would be like, if everyone tried their hardest to avoid conflict.

How I Would Do It

As much as I would like to try another blog post about the Summer and Sixth Form, I think I'll stick with my ponderings of how Derren Brown performed his amazing prediction of the lottery numbers.

A few key things he's said and done that make me think this; it took upwards of a year of his life, apparently, to set this up. It's obviously not a small scale thing. Also, the trick itself only took place in a 10 minute program, in a somewhat low budget (for Derren Brown) setting.

I'm in no way certain this is how he himself did it, but if I were him; this is how I would have done it.

He could, quite easily, if not quickly, film himself performing the exact same section of flipping the numbered balls around over and over again, for every potential combination of numbers. Initially that seems quite a dauntingly massive task, but, otherwise, fairly easy, and perhaps not so mindnumbingly tricky if he were to spread out the thousands of predictions minutes he would have to do over a long period of time (say, a few years). To clarify, I mean the actual sections leading up to and including the lottery draw, but the final part, as he flips the balls around. Clearly some skillful camera switching would have to take place for this to work.

There are a couple of arguments to this, most notably the live feed from the television beside him. If he filmed this 5 months ago, say, he couldn't have rigged the television to play the same images of 5 months in the future. Well, I can think of at least one way around this. One would be to perform the camera switch from the "live" part of the programme where he writes the numbers and watches the television (and all before) and the "prerecorded" section, where he reveals his prediction, cannily taken from an archive of the stock of prerecordings of different lottery 'predictions' filmed over the course of his years of work.

Of course, there are a couple of phenomenal flaws in this; camera switching is by no means easy to make flow between two films, particularly under the relentless scrutiny that is the Internet, and it's an awful lot of effort to go to for what is essentially a very cheap camera trick. I always envisaged Derren to go for something a bit more... grand.

That's my die cast, anywho. It's a potential way of doing it, in my opinion.

Conceptualism Behind Freedom, and the Continued Workings of the Mind

A theme prominant in the day's activities today has been of mixed reception in the mind. Initially, a number of the schools populace found themselves locked in a room for two hours with removal of basic sources of sanity such as communication, and broadly a lockdown of all functions beyond work. Towards the end, the fact that the end of the exams was upon us struck, and joy was filled because we were, bluntly, right back where we started some three years.

But that's a somewhat warped summary, to add some context to the introduction, and perhaps an unfair one. The confinement in exam rooms has ultimately gained us rather influential qualifications which, assuming civilisation as we know doesn't end as a result of freakish bio-engineered walking plants before 2011, we will find unspeakably useful in the execution of day-to-day life. More specifically, it allows a larger range of jobs to become available. A cynical man may briefly pass on the thought that the reward for toil is more toil; as a result of our hard work, we have allowed ourselves the oppurtunity for more work to be thrust upon us, however not quite inadvertently (incidentally, quite the reverse in fact). However, the chain of events goes further. The more work we gain as a result of the work we achieve now, the more luxuries we can afford. This, ultimately, is where all work leads to. Once adequate funds have been amassed for the nourishment of the self and perhaps any family one feels obliged to feed, there are a number of other things which may claim priority; housing, heating, healthcare, et cetera, but after all of these things have been paid for, all that addition work can gain the worker is luxuries. This seems a rather selfish way of looking at it, with perhaps slightly tired yet still relevant arguments of third world suffering, but a more realistic one, I feel.

But this is merely the distracting background for the main issue I wish to address; there is a point to work, be it luxury or necessity, and is ultimately quite a fruitful endeavour. But what is more interesting is how the mind functions under the constraints of exam conditions. In a quiet room, devoid of distractions, with no task to occupy the mind, it occupies itself, and, in my opinion, is best equipped to analyse nearly anything. It is most curious, in fact, that this freedom of the mind is induced by its own constraint from activity. Almost a sort of spiteful move by nature against self-induced boredom. In any case, it is in these conditions that a higher clarity can often be achieved. For example, this topic itself is mostly the result of pondering in the hour or so of spare time. That said, in retrospect, it doesn't seem as well constructed as it was. This could either be attributed to it merely being lost in translation, forgotten, or simply because I've slacked to a less attentive state. It's not really possible to say, really, although I would say that another possibility is that it was never really that well constructed initially and I am simply only realising it now. But back to the topic.

Freedom
The mind is a curious thing, as I feel I should say more often, to the point where I can finally have a phrase to precede; "-that's what I always say.". It is essentially a computer which is in control of itself, however, as I suspect I may have detailed in a past blog, I have often entertained the notion we in fact lack the control we think we have over our own minds. Not in the sense that we can possibly really be aware of, but in that since our thoughts are the product of chemical reactions, and the chemicals within our brain will always do the exact chemical reaction in the exact same way (this being in terms of the age-old muliverse argument, which goes thus. There are (within the theory) multiple alternate realities in which we make different decisions, to create the representation of all theoretically possible eventualities. What I am trying to communicate in this somewhat over-extended parenthesis-enclosed waffling is that there are no alternate possible decisions we can make because the chemicals present in the brain will always perform in the same way, and we therefore don't actually have the decision to make. It is perhaps decided in part by chance, as the complex channels of the brain are quite intelligent in their self-learning. This helps mask this possible way in which the brain works from being too obvious and, in place, random). Ultimately, because of this, it is possible we, as concious beings, are only spectators to our own thoughts. But this is delving too much into otherwise frowned upon fields of speculation, sounding abstract to the point of mocking. Nevertheless, it is a theory that I've often thought of in rather fond detail, in its originality. I had a similar theory that, if this were to be true, then, in addition to the laws of physics the entireity of history and the future are in fact preset and, theoretically speaking, open to being calculated, if one to chance upon a curiously convenient archive of the chemical format of all beings, and all objects within the universe. Oh well.

I suspect I may have digressed somewhat, so shall have to return sometime to this topic.

Intelligence and Ignorance, and the Ponderings of the Two

I've been told, it seems, to shorten up on my posts, and of course there's only one way to respond to that :]

This is a rather meaty topic, and I'm anxious to get my teeth into it, shed some light and shred some dark (lolpun). I've often found myself considering others at varying levels of stupidity and intelligence, and the same applies to the self. But what is curious is that the labels attached to any particular person never necessarily have to remain so. Someone initially considered a bit dim on one occasion may on an entirely seperate occasion seem prodigal. Some may argue that this is because people can learn new things and generally become more intelligent. But why then, I challenge, does the reverse also occur? Someone who may seem universally intelligent acting rather stupidly doesn't make any sense, unless you allow for some sort of loss of knowledge, which I'm omitting for now because I don't particularly feel like getting into the whole ethical black hole of memory loss and other psychological damages which may contribute to one losing knowledge. That, I feel, is an entirely different issue, which I may or may not look into later.

Now what is most curious is what people tend to think of themselves in terms of intelligence. What I feel drawn to pointing out is that people classically think themselves smarter than they actually are, and that explains why someone apparently smart acts stupidly; because the initial outlook of intellect was in fact misguided. But then, I hear you cry, surely if the initial interpretation can be wrong, as proven by the latter interpretation, then in turn the latter interpretation can be wrong. This, I feel, is becoming rather entangled in itself, so let's start again in a more rigid manner.

Intelligence and Ignorance; As Interpreted by the Self
What people think of themselves, I tend to find, is near enough always wrong. Many a time have I seen someone prance around with a veil of 'attitude' and 'apathy' only for them to time and time again prove this not to be so. What is gloriously ironic, and, to the cynical, rather amusing, is that even when they disprove their own self-thoughts, they remain blissfully unaware, and shall continue the charade until they die. This is the outlook I usually hold on arrogance, hence my tendency to not really like it, despite the limitless barrels of dry humour it can supply. It can apply to absolutely anyone, and, as mentioned, even when pointed out to them, they will likely think; "Glad I'm not like that, hur hur, better go do someone intimidating, because I think I'm intimidating. Grr, grr, woof". Getting back to the topic at hand; aspects of this can be extrapolated and pulled across to intelligence. Someone may accomplish something, and think themselves the shiniest fork in the drawer, regardless of actuality. Similarly, they may do something which, in retrospect, was rather dumb, and the impose of themselves a certain lack of self-confidence with the thought that "I must be rather dumb". This is where one of the first mental hurdles I'm eager to verbalise comes into play; What exactly is intelligence? What can be accomplished that can ascertain any measurable degree of intellect? A classical, and refreshingly literal, answer is one's intelligence quotient. But I've always naturally been rather unimpressed by the system to which such things are measured. Some of the questions on IQ tests strike me as irrelevant, and it eventually became clear to me on my first try at one of them that the designers had a different perception of what exactly intelligence is to me. I'm quite solidly confident that a person of below average IQ is equally capable of intelligent acts as one of a higher IQ, thus rendering any attempt to assign a numerical value to intellect utterly pointless, and, in turn, invalidating any comparison of two individuals. To complicate matters further; I believe there are a number of different ways in which one can be "intelligent". One person may be able to logically work through mathematical equations with flawless accuracy in a limited time, but be clueless as to what colours clash and match. In the same way, an inspirational author can be just as intelligent as Einstein, who I've been led to believe struggled with the written word. How does this apply specifically to how people perceive their own intelligence, though? Well, I think that people are on some level aware of this at all times. Everyone is quietly confident of at least one thing they consider themselves "smart" at, even if they cannot demonstrate it, or indeed if they want to (in spite of how much they may deny it with their claims of; "I can't do anythinnnnng", I feel drawn to mention in a preemptive strike at any objections potential readers may have). In the same way, they are aware that they are not as smart in other areas. The distinction between the different types of intelligence is clear, but I oppose anyone who claims to have mapped them all. There are some levels into our own minds I don't believe it is possible to delve, and no amount of evidence should ever really be able to shunt that thought.

Intelligence and Ignorance; As Interpreted by Others
It is both a painful misfortune and powerful blessing that mankind is able to instill opinions of others into their minds. We can assign roles to those around us; Friend, Foe, Leader, Fool. This allows us to form our society, but also causes us to set about destroying it. We can recognise the abilities and downfalls of another, and therefore comprehend that they have a different role to us, and also how our role affects them. We are even complex enough, when we haven't just woken up, aren't about to go to sleep and are in one of the rare moments when we're not submerging our brains with alcohol, to comprehend how the system of a society functions through a series of individuals of varying talents and downfalls, and how they all compliment each other to various ways. However, we are nothing if not bizarre in our workings, and at the same time as this fantastic omniscience, we persist in forming prejudices of others drawn through a lack of understanding. A thought passes, as I write, that perhaps we have evolved to think at such a speed that we are forming conclusions on others far too fast without a complete set of information on which to base them, leading to the rather illogical racial intolerances. Just a musing, that occured to me, and as I look back on it rather unlikely, but a nice way to portray our standing as a race on the situation in a part-way poetic fashion. I assure you, I am reaching a point here. What I am trying to say, since I've danced around it so much (still at it, see? :]), is that we can never really know everything about another person. Not only is it notoriously difficult to get all the relevant information, it's impossible to put into any sort of organised form. Not only that, but we ourselves cannot be sure of anything very much, as the risk is always there that what you think is smart, is actually so stupid you're too stupid to realise it's stupid. I secretly wish the world is like this, actually, and that when we die we get to see all the answers, and can laugh at the foolishness of the living. That seems rather... odd, so I shall move on once again I feel.

Self-Analysis; Intelligence and Ignorance
As the entireity of this post has been detailing why it's impossible to know whether you are intelligent yourself, and also impossible to know whether someone else is intelligent, I meet the problem of trying to analyse one's own intellect with some lack of enthusiasm. Clearly I am not adequately capable of deciding to what degree my own intellect is at, and neither is anyone else on the planet. The fact that all forms of numerical measurement of intellect are fundamentally flawed by their very nature in my eyes doesn't lend aid either, so it's quite possible that this task is doomed to fail. Nevertheless, I shall attempt it nevertheless, partly out of principle, partly because I don't like being referred to as boyo, and therefore need to get the word count to something more titanic than it is at this moment in time :] With that in mind; here goes.

There have been numerous occasions where I have considered myself a complete and utter fool; and others where I've taken some sort of intellectual high-ground (ableit keeping rather quiet about it). I cringe slightly at saying that however, as it seems rather big headed. It would be to some aid if there were some sort of yardstick to compare against, but the only plausible option for such a thing would be to compare all aspects of me with that of another person, and that just borders on obsessively trying to prove oneself to someone else and that would simply be fingernails down the chalkboard of my very soul by the sheer intensity of the arrogance involved. The post seems to have come full circle, as I am once again struck by the problem of a distinct lack of direct definition of intelligence. Also; I suspect any attempt to try and point out what I think my strengths and weaknesses to be would ultimately be quite futile. Some sort of guideline at least would be useful, where no particular activity would be used as a reference, through which arrogance can be derived. With all this in mind, I feel as if I'm writhing around to accomplish the task of self-evaluation of intelligence without saying what I think I'm good at. A solution suggests itself, in that if I were to cut straight to the end of what I hope to achieve through self-evaluation and work backwards to find a more convenient route to the conclusion which does not involve such a crude method. For the purposes of clarity; I mean by that that I wish to improve faults in myself through regular sessions of self-analysis. To do that, I need to correct faults. To do that I need to identify faults, hence the stage of self-analysis. Perhaps I have lost sight of that for this post because clearly to identify faults it is not strictly speaking necessary to point out one's strengths. It may help, true, but can be avoided if convenience demands in the way it does. To that end; I shall attempt to identify in what areas of my life I am stupidest.

Maths, after a long day of revision on the topic, is the first one fresh in my mind. I struggle to keep the relevant thoughts in my head long enough for them to be useful. It is rather tiresome, actually, as maths should really be the one subject which can simply be worked out straight from the exam, but I find more and more that if I cannot remember the specific mathematical rule involved in a question, then I cannot simple "work out" the question. To that end, perhaps I am just not proficent in remembering rules of numbers. This particular flaw does not concern me a great deal, however, as I believe my command of numeracy to be at least good enough to get me by, and I see no goal to which I am aiming where it would be useful to further my understanding of maths any further than that which I am already revising for the final upcoming exam.

Systems and Control and Engineering are next in my mind as my major drawbacks, but it is not my intention to simply pick my worst school topics and whine about not being better at them than I am, because that seems rather typical of a teenager and clearly now, just before the exams of such subjects is not an oppurtune moment to stop and think; "Golly, not really very good at them". Ironically enough, this leads me onto French, which whilst also a school subject, if I expand it to become "Foreign Languages" it seems much more all-encompassing and relevant. I am painfully aware that the world is becoming more involved with the rest of its occupants, and a proficiency in a foreign language is become a valued commodity as a results of this. Perhaps that's not strictly true, though, in my head, as what worries me more isn't merely not being the elite of the workforce pickings, but being the lesser of them. By that I mean more and more people are gaining further qualifications in languages, and I am not amongst them, pushing me down on the ladder of good selections of jobs and universities. That is a major concern for me, but I hope I have remedied it to some extent with my French revision and Latin course, although I am quite aware that my knowledge of the language(s) will fade over time, leaving merely a qualification I cannot back up, so whilst I am patching over this fault academically, it remains a hole in my intellect.

Moving away from academic matters, I find my long-standing fault of lack social standing, or, somewhat oddly, understanding, slowly fixing itself. It remains however, a rather notable error in my intellect, as evidenced time and time again, but I feel I can understand people a little better than I could before. Obviously there are some matters I still feel rather foolish about, and I still find myself making mistakes and struggling to understand how I could possibly done better, but nevertheless, progress cannot be made without setbacks and lessons learnt. However, I still express doubt I will ever really master this particular Moby Dick of a problem. The moment I think I have certain things cornered, they turn out to be completely different. When I think I have a decision made, circumstances change, change back, reverse, or revert to their original state. Perhaps I simply don't have a mind to understand these things, or perhaps where other people are involved it is impossible to ever really know what someone else is thinking. I'm skeptical of this, as some people can be irritatingly predictable in all matters, but it remains the only really plausible explanation. I refuse to accept it however, as if the goal of understanding the matter is taken off of the horizon, I shall surely not continue as fervently as I have in recent times. Perhaps the confusion will subside in time. I doubt it, but perhaps.

Success and Failure and Misconceptions Therein

One thought that strikes me as I sit down to another few hours of trying to cobble together a meaningful post is that it must be both extremely tiresome to a reader to try and navigate my somewhat clichéd musings interjected with superfluous and unnecessary twists of the language in which the former are contained. See? Boring and needlessly tricky to read. Nevertheless, the purpose of the blog was never to entertain, but to find some form of, for wont of a better word, enlightment as to my own thoughts on certain matters.

Rather conveniently, this gives a nice setting for the topic at hand, which I will explain more coherantly momentarily. When one thinks of either success or failure, several things spring to mind near enough subconciously. Both imply some sort of attempt at some goal has taken place, and that an amount of effort has gone into it. The distinction, of course, is that one fulfilled the goal initially set out upon, and other does not. However, that is the point at which definition draws its boundaries, and some further exploration is necessary. An example, perhaps, will reveal some finer details which may shed more light than the textbook explanation.

Here, is where the aforementioned setting of my blog becomes more apparent as a convenience, in the form of an example. At the blogs creation, it was my intention (for purposes of clarity it may be useful if I limit synonym usage here, to help identify with concepts, so let's go with "Goal") to try and determine exactly what was going in within my own head, find answers to certain niggling questions and aid in the setting of targets and tasks to be completed. Now, if we were to take this as the "Goal" to the "Endeavour" of the blog creation certain other factors expressed earlier become clear in example. The time investiture and work involved in the creation and posting of the blog represent the Effort used by me in the execution of the Endeavour in an attempt to reach the Goal. Now, however long-winded this may seem, I am in fact reaching a point, as if we were to superimpose the concepts of success and failure in their aforementioned definitions, it would seem that if the Goal were to be achieved, the Endeavour would be a success, and if not then it would be a failure. This is more or less irrefutable, if the judgement went down to the technicality, but I believe there is more to it, which can be moved onto rather swiftly.

Now, such a simple example with no testing and observation is all well and good for a rather cynical person to force a point onto those who oppose them, but not for those seeking a rather more complete understanding on a topic via an open mind. In that spirit, let us explore, instead of a specifc example, the general possibilities involved in the concept, in their infinite number. The one which sprung to mind and more or less spurred this entire paragraph so far into being is that the definition of success is rather shaky and blurred. If your Endeavour is walking down the street with the Goal of meeting a friend, but they are absent, then your Endeavour is a Failure, as the goal has not been achieved. However, if, in the same scenario, you find a wad of money lying on the floor in all its hypothetical glory, then I for one would still consider the Endeavour a Success, even if the Goal has never been achieved. What I am getting at is that there are alternative benefits to an Endeavour to that of the initial Goal, but whether they contribute to the status of Success or Failure is up for debate. I remain undecided, but feel obliged in my position of the one to actual create the dilemna of deciding to at least explore the implications of siding with either decision. Let us say that it is believed that alternative benefits to an Endeavour being fulfilled do in fact contribute to whether it is a Success or Failure, then I think it is quite possible to argue for a number of scenarios that there is no such thing as a complete Failure in any Endeavour. Any task you undertake, whether you get what you intended or not, accumulates life experience. You have learnt something from your Failure, unaware of it though you may be, and that, in beautiful irony, makes it not a Failure at all, or at least not a complete one. You will always be gaining more and more, whatever you do. Sure, some things can be lost, but at this -instant-, you are gaining something from reading this. I'm not quite big-headed enough to mean by that that my words are in some way a way through which you can gain some glorious knowledge, because for all I know I'm talking complete male cow faeces, and have been for quite a while, but even if I am you're gaining life experience and learning life lessons all the time, be it that "This fool has no clue what he's talking about; I won't listen to him in future" or "Ooh, that's quite interesting, I shall consider that in future". In this way, it becomes clear that no complete Failure can exist. Alternatively, one could argue that it is not the Endeavour, and experiences found within it that needs to be determined as a Failure or Success, but the Goal itself. The finding of the wad of money in the earlier example would not be a Failure or a Success, merely an occurance, along with any misfortune which could befell the person walking to meet their friend. Instead it is the actual event of meeting the friend which needs to be dteremined as a Success or Failure, in the case of the example the Goal of meeting the friend would have Failed, and the wad of money is completely seperate to this. Ultimately, this is very similar to the textbook definition, so I won't explore this any further.

I feel this post didn't really get very far, and could be explored in much more detail, as only one interesting observation was really made and that itself was rather basic, so I may look back at it later.

Self Analysis; Recent Events and Capability

One thing I've always thought of myself was being able to be quite detached from events, and to be able to work out what would be the best probably course of action in any given event. However, it has never been more apparent than it has in recent times that this isn't really so. In this week alone I've shown I can be just as giddy, stupid, emotional and depressey as every other teenager you could pick out of a million. I've made errors in the past week, been blinded by my own giddiness (alas, I can't find another word that doesn't make me cringe (or at least, not as much)), had my mistakes made clear, and then entered a somewhat silly state of morose brooding, as well as becoming rather more stressed than I would like. All of this is exactly what I've seen others done and thought to myself; "My, my, glad I'm not like that and I'll never make those mistakes, poor souls". Not only is this woefuly ironic, it also drawns my own arrogance into relief, which I've been trying to track down for a while now, with the certainty it was about somewhere.

In matters of the heart and mind, one can never truly know they will not make a mistake. Every action is a risk into what you think you know.

However, that's not to say you can not learn from past experiences. For example, from this drama of a week, I can gather to be more cautious, and less stupid. Despite still lacking a means to do this, at least armed with the knowledge of my own flaws that task shall be easier.

In more immediate events, it has become increasingly apparent I don't know what to do, what any signs mean and what anything ahead is leading to. At the moment, I don't think I'm quite ready to look back on events with closure, so I shall let events take their course until a clear course of action presents itself.

To be looked back on in later times, probably after exams or, more accurately, when it's all over.

Jack Always Has the Answer

What have I done?
What have I done?
How could I be so blind?
All is lost, where was I?
Spoiled all, spoiled all
Everything's gone all wrong

What have I done?
What have I done?
Find a deep cave to hide in
In a million years they'll find me
Only dust and a plaque
That reads, "Here Lies Poor Old Flep"

But I never intended all this madness, never
And nobody really understood, how could they?
That all I ever wanted was to bring them something great
Why does nothing ever turn out like it should?

Well, what the heck, I went and did my best!
And, by God, I really tasted something swell!
And for a moment, why, I even touched the sky!
And at least I left some stories they can tell, I did!

And for the first time since I don't remember when
I felt just like my old happy self again :]

Life lessons are always being learnt; some more painful than others. Those who can't take them in their stride don't deserve the benefits, and I intend to reap them all.

Rage and Control; The Beast and The Chains

Other things are always a-go recently, it seems, but I reckon it's important to keep the mind thinking about a few things on the go lest you become obsessed. In that spirit, this is a topic that occured to me a few days ago, not quite in the way a couple of people may jump to the conclusion of, but similarly.

It has been almost a hobby of mine to not get angry about things, intially out of spite towards attempts to wind me up, and in later times for a mix of reasons, but it's a curious endeavour, for whatever reason. Incidentally, it's probably inaccurate to say I try -not- to get angry, but instead to prevent myself from doing anything about it. To that end, it's reasonable to assume it is in fact a fairly universal trait in everyone, but that doesn't necessarily deteriorate its importance.

To begin with, lets look at anger, and its affiliated consequences. It's generally considered one of the uglier emotions, and generally doesn't really end well. However, that's not to say it doesn't have its uses. It induces additional production of adrenaline, which could save your neck in a life-or-death situation. But in a normal social situation, it merely opens the door to mistakes to be made and harm to be done. Anger itself is, for me, not really brought about by being provoked by cheap goading or physical harm, which is convenient, although I can very much understand why others would be. What gets to me more is something that grinds against more fundamental morals and thoughts, for example, unnecessary cruelty or arrogance. Is this a good position? To answer that I need a more definitive idea of "good", really, so let's assume the purpose of anger is as a form of self-empowerment as a means of defence in a life-or-death situation, and that "bad" would be a form of anger that is induced when it is not needed, and merely makes the situation worse. In that sense, anger is only really "good" when life is at risk, which I don't really think is strictly speaking correct. If someone is being cruel to my friends am I not entitled to some rage? I am drawn to say yes, but that's the obvious answer. Why is it necessary? Anger isn't the only source of adrenaline, and without that rather weak justification it is just a means of destroying a person from within. A beast, which consumes what a person thinks they stand for and regurgitates a sort of uncivilised version capable only really of destruction. It is unnecessary, an inefficient and altogether dangerous way of achieving what can be done with the mind in full control.

Control, is a matter of keeping the anger in check. The only real way of doing this, as far as I can gather, is to always be aware of what you should be doing, and think everything twice. This, of course, is easier said than done, and not always doable. Sometimes there is no time to think even once, and you're not aware of what you're doing. Even if you're able to be aware of what you're thinking all the time, and spot every time you might do something inadvisable, you're inevitably going to have to convince yourself not to take that glinting temptation. To burn with sheer fury, break some bones, end some smirks and put them all in their place. It is at these times the chains loosen and the beast stirs, ready to destroy what you've built in an instant. I don't know any surefire way to combat this. Some would say to vent it somehow, but I'm not happy with the concept. The beast still wins. Is there a better method? Now that I think about it, I don't actually know what I do, but I haven't slipped up entirely yet, despite what people might think. Incidentally, is it more dangerous to not vent it? The longer you restrain something, the more force it puts out when it does actually release. That certainly is a compelling argument, but I'm still drawn to just making use of restraint.

The beast is chained, and shall remain chained.






As a sidenote, I observe that these blogs seem to be becoming more commentaries than a form of characteral progress. I'll look into rectifying that later.

Flight of the Moths

Completely against the spirit of weening off the metaphorical posts and the 10 facts one and getting back to the usual 10 hour thinks, here we are with another moth post :]

To sum up previous posts, I observed how a moth will gravitate towards a flame in complete disregard to all previous experience and common sense, and risk its own life to be near to it. This struck me as odd, yet curiously understandable.

Upon further inspection, I can conclude that the moth takes a risk against fear, and although there's a chance it may burn in the fire, it can still have fun :] Things can at least go well, in the world nearer to the flame, and although things can never always go as planned, or how the moth things they are, and the threat of burning is ever-present, as long as a smile is had, it's probably worth the risk :]

Internal Analysis; Flaws and the Faults of the Self

Several things come to mind in the creation of this post; that it's been a while since I last made a proper post on here, that I need to take the mind off of things and that an at least passing look of my character is probably needed soon in any case.

Every character is flawed in some way. This is an inevitability which becomes apparent to all, whether they admit to it, or, indeed, realise it. I do not mean this in terms of shortcomings in ability. That is merely the representation of the characteristics of the character, and not necessarily flawed in essence. For example, since one person is better at a particular mental or physical contest is not a show of a flaw of the loser or an advantage of the loser, in terms of character. As I write this though, my thoughts become clouded over the exact definition, at least, from my perspective. Ergo, it would be a good idea to discern what I actually consider a flaw in character at all.

To begin with, "flaw" is probably one of the worse words to describe what I mean. My choice of it is probably, ironically, derived from my own arbitrary designation of what I consider a "flaw", an act of defining I, as a character and therefore inherently flawed myself, am not entitled to make anyway, but nevertheless, I must work with what I have or advancement is less likely. Getting to the point; I see the collective "Goal", if you will, of a group of people is to use each other as a form of exercising and developing our characters in such a way that we gain a character which "gets on" with other characters. In this way, friends allow us to interact with other people of similar characters to your friends, and thus advance further in society. In a sense, I can envisage it as almost a sort of... lock and key arrangement. If you're friends with a person of a certain character, and get on with them via the group of friends, then you attain the "Key" to that personality in the form of your character changing against the mould of the friend. With the key, or changed shape and nature of character from the interaction with the friend, you are able to interact with people of a similar personality (or people with the "Lock" shape personality corresponding to the personality you just got a "Key" from) easier. This explanation is so full of holes, of course, it's effectively the world's most philosophical slice of leerdammer, and it's a cruel and mechanical way of portaying good friendships which do of course mean so much more, but it's the best way I can think of verbalising the thoughts in my head (This may seem entirely off topic, but I'm getting there). To this extent, I derive a "Flaw" in a personality. If a personality develops in such a way that it does not fulfill the "Goal" and it instead drives itself away from certain character types, then it is not fulfilling the "Goal" and has thus developed a flaw. Again, I stress the point at this stage that the terminology I'm using here is neither accurate or in any way official. It is merely the best way I can find of saying what I am thinking. So ultimately, what I describe as a "Flaw" in a character; a characteristic which causes a rift between a friend, thus breaking from the "Goal" of the friendship.

Getting to the point of the post, I feel the need to analyse my flaws if I am to successfully develop my character to the best of its potential. I'm probably the worst person to make this judgement from the obvious bias, but the only people I trust to make the judgement probably wouldn't be entirely honest with me, I suspect. The key question between me and a diagnosis is clear; How do I find my flaws? Some are quite obvious from a simple look back on the average day, for example my inherent awkwardness around certain situations, or a tendency to turn the other cheek, but others are perhaps not so visible from my angle. What is the ideal method to find these flaws? How can they be corrected? Self-improvement is an ideal aspiration, but the route to finding those hidden from me is a tricky conundrum. A logical, if unorthodox, method comes to mind. Since the flaws I know of are things I am concious of and think of myself as having, the ones I don't know of are bound to be ones I don't think myself as having. A quick skim over my psyche reveals nothing, but that's only to be expected. Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way. Should I be inspecting my own personality for traits I see as abrasive? That seems logical, yet at the same time I can see it being inconclusive if something I don't find annoying annoys someone else. Arrogance is the main attribute I find repulsive. When a person actively attempts to instil an image of themselves being above others seems petty and childish to me, and if anything else woefully ironic because it instinctively makes me disassociate them with whatever they are being arrogant about. Am I arrogant? I wouldn't like to think so, but then again, that's the point; an arrogant person wouldn't. No times in which I've displayed this trait spring to mind, but perhaps I'm not seeing what is there. Another trait that I find to grind my gears is cruelty and lying about things that matter. I suppose sometimes I do the first, which I can work on a bit, so at least something can be gained from this post, but I don't think I ever lie about things I deem important, and that can be discerned a bit more easily than detecting arrogance. I suspect I'm getting caught in a bit of a loop here. Trying to find that which I, being me, can't see, seems mildly pointless. An ideal solution where I can solve the problem would be to take all the attributes I see as negative and work at voiding them from my actions as much as possible.

Is this conclusive? I suppose not really. But it seems... necessary to make the effort, for the sake of my own conscience.

I suspect things will work out fine, given time.

10 Random Facts

Looks like I've been tagged by Rhian to give 10 random facts about myself.

1. I love reading :] I like to gnaw my way through most genres, but my preferred is comedy, particularly that of Sir Terry Pratchett. Its a nice way to chill, I find.
2. I'm painfully aware of how little extra-curricular, or indeed any, activities I do outside of school. Hopefully planning on fixing that through the summer :]
3. The fourth toe (the one adjacent to the little toe) on both of my feet are deformed by an odd operation I had when I was a baba (which I don't entirely understand the mechanics of, but apparently a tendon was cut or something). The end result is that they bend inwards at a bizarre angle :]
4. My favourite film at the moment is probably either the Da Vinci Code or HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy. Oddly enough both of them because of their being adaptions from fantastic books :]
5. My biggest fear is probably either very deep and dark water, or losing my friends D:
6. I'm working on a long-standing ambition to be a Doctor. It seems a pleasant mix of organising paperwork quietly, to a change of daily routine all the time, helping people and a nice pay check :] Plus, I like the Dr. part in front of the name ^__^
7. I like to think a lot about things (a lot more than makes it onto these blogs).
8. I'm a sap for well written sit-coms :] Scrubs, Friends, Big Bang Theory and whatnot are all quite epic :]
9. I'm a bit of a worrier, to be honest. I get wound up about things very easily, behind the scenes.
10. I'm also a bit soppy :] I cried at the RSPCA leaflet of a kitten with a broken paw in a few bin bags with the caption "Please don't throw me away again...", I wuv my cats because they're fwuffily and I give them a big hug more or less every day :3

The Continuation of Moths

I can quite clearly observe, scientific reasoning aside, that moths spend the majority of their time in the dark. Spiritually speaking, they can be considered to do this out of choice, from their nocturnal nature, but what drives them to the light? Its hypnotic attraction pulls them closer over time. They flutter around the flame hesitantly, unsure of themselves. Eventually they will either flee, perhaps wisely, having not built the confidence. Or perhaps they will wait too long to strengthen their will, and the flame will die before them. Or just perhaps, they will take the risk. They take a plunge, quite literally. It all depends on judgement, or maybe luck. Will they burn, victim of their bad luck or judgement.

These summarise the fates of the metaphorical moths so far.

But is there another possibility? Does the risk yield a better harvest for the lucky? Is there a reason for the otherwise unexplained attraction to the flame?

We shall see, I suppose.

Consider the Moth

If a moth is left in a room with a flame, it will gravitate toward it. Eventually, its orbit will carry it inexorably on a spiral closer to the flame, and it will become burnt, scarred by its cautious audacity. If it survives the experience, it will flutter aimlessly back into the dark. Perhaps the flame will extinguish, or be reduced to smouldering embers.

Extending the situation, if the flame is re-ignited, the moth will once again begin its path to oblivion. Past experiences matter not, to such a simple being. This process will repeat, until it dies. A fate of its own inexplicably stupid and predictable actions, yet innocently beyond its control.

Curious.

The Implications of Characteral BuildUp and Computers

I like to think that of all things I can do, one of the things I do well is think. Another bubble of arrogance, perhaps, but I prefer to think of it as a quiet confidence in one's self which is necessary to dismiss troubling pieces of self-doubt which would otherwise irritatingly hinder one's own development in the area by convincing yourself you are incapable of doing what you are doing. This can be leashed from fully fledged arrogance by simply not advertising that you have considered this (I am aware of the irony here, but I stand by the notion that I never made Muted Musings to actually be read, so don't see why I shouldn't be able to treat it as such), allowing the removal of such barriers without the ensuing character degradation.

In the case of thinking, I see the mind as a pool in which the thinker can swim freely. The human mind, its undoubtedly infinite limitations we are simply unaware of at this stage aside, is so vast and complicated that being inside it is almost impossible to appreciate the staggering complexity of nearly everything you think. This next sentence was going to be a list of all the things the mind could do off of the top of my head, but there's simply too many. There's something like six examples in that mini-scenario alone! Planning into the future, ordering things into a list, categorising things, identifying things, communicating a concept, foreseeing a possible problem, taking measures to ensure this problem doesn't come to pass, retrospectively analysing one's own actions, all within those two sentences of text. And that's just the tip of the iceberg! (There's another one; understanding concepts via a metaphor likening it to something more easily understandable). The mind is capable of such a blindingly diverse myriad of functions it puts super-computers to shame! It is said a machine can only be as intelligent as its creator. It is also said that this is not so because computers we create can perform so many functions so quickly. Balls to that, we couldn't possibly make a machine as intelligent as the few pounds of grey goo encased in our heads. Not only does it monitor an entire multicellular organism, changing conditions within said organism to ensure survival, not only does it allow the organism a vast biological computer to use at its own whim, not only does it subconciously record data, directing actions and thoughts without any control from the user to better the user's chance of survival, not only this, but it allows the creation of character. That is something I can't understand. I don't deny the possibility for the creation of a computer which could monitor the same number of inputs the brain does, and control a variety of outputs accordingly to maintain a figure, I'm certain a computer could at least mimic thoughts to the point that it could allow a manipulator the same amount of freedom of thought as the user's own brain, I'm fairly sure a computer can record a number of preprogrammed factors and impose laws on itself to prevent certain known "bad" factors to come to pass, simulating subconcious learning, but I know that no computer can develop character (on a similar note, no computer we have at the moment can do all of the above whilst weighing a few pounds and fitting snugly inside the human skull).

Why? What makes character so unreproducable? It is merely a collection of factors, when broken down to component parts, however infinitely complex these components may be and how diverse their relationships with each other may end up revealing themselves to be. I don't understand the concept. This, in itself, is a representation of the brain's own irony. Why does it do all these things, but one of the most crucial of them; thought and self-awareness, is incapable of understanding its own inner workings innately? Surely it should make perfect sense to us? A computer works by running through its own programming, but our programming being shown to us is just a grey, bloody mess. I feel that this simply because I am not quite looking at the topic the right way.

Logic tells me that if I were to state all the aspects I know to be true, and grind them down to the subsequent deductions which must be true because of these, then the ones which are present numerous times are more likely to be true. It is a flawed method, due to a restriction of information and an inability to process all feasible deductions of every piece of confirmed information, but should at least offer a clearer perspective of what I think. First, it seems prudent to list the relevant things I consider to be facts on the matter, and explain them each in turn.

• Each person's character is entirely unique to them. Similar characters may exist, but each is varied as snowflakes or fingerprints. This should mean that the factors in their creation are so infinitely varied, they cannot ever be reproduced perfectly, but at the same time factors are common enough to allow certain characteristics to develop in similar ways.
  
• A person's character drives to identify itself by attaching itself to unique concepts (or at least concepts unique to the group of people commonly interacted with). For want of a better example, names are a good concept of this (or more personally, my obsession with green likely stems from a desire to be unique. This is shown that if someone else were to claim a fanatical obsession with green, I would likely be irritated by it.)
• A character values both friendships and enemies. A character will always be drawn to other characters which "match". If not because they are similar, then because they work together. If one character fuels itself on attention, then it would compete with a like-minded one, and a divide would exist, but a character which gains pleasure by paying attention to another would work well with them. Despite clashes of character existing, they seem to fulfill a "Nemesis" hole in most people's minds. Although most probably wouldn't admit it, out of shame, denial or merely misunderstanding what I mean, most people (I cringe to use the term everyone, because I can think of people who simply don't exhibit what I'm thinking of, but I'm fairly certain the concept exists in their head anyway) seem to feel the need to identify another person, or character, as a Nemesis. Be it a test of strength, a clash of principles or a matter of upbringing, people like to have other people to test themselves against. It may be to prove a identifying aspect of their character, touched upon briefly earlier in each character's constant strive to identify itself as unique, or simply eliminate that which seems naturally incorrect to them is unimportant; it is a universally present theme in the psyche.

I'm becoming irritated. Although I've a clearer image of characters as a concept, I cannot derive from these musings the nature of a character's creation. Although it pains me to say it, I may have to explore more archaic theories. It is often commented that people are merely the summation of their own life experiences up to that point. For the most part, I agree to this theory. It makes perfect sense, and can be usefully applied to life, with some degree of reliability. All the same, it doesn't quite help differentiate computers from a person. Surely any computer with the capacity to record past events and edit its own programming accordingly, will develop a character? Everything else is just a matter of proportions. This is a slightly scary thought, because that doesn't seem infeasible by todays technological prowess. And if it's at least mildly possible now, that must mean it's improvable, which is even scarier.

Fear, and the Roots Thereof

Fear is a curious topic, which I've never really explored fully, despite using it comparatively frequently in the last few posts as a concept to be taken as universally understood. Looking back, that was probably a vaguely foolish thing to do, and I should promptly explore what I actually meant.

Rationally, fear consists of a feeling that you do not want whatever the future holds, or you suspect to hold, to come to pass. From what I can tell, it's an extension on the basic reflex of "Oh, that fire hurts, I will take my hand out of it" to make "That fire will hurt, and I'm scared of my hand being in it.". That's what I see on the surface anyway. Something which can be perceived to be "bad" naturally imposes "fear" in the mind of the viewer. In this sense, fear comes in near limitless forms. Nearly anything which is "Bad" can be "feared". A state of mind, a person, a sensation, a scenario, a loss of friendship, the thoughts of another, an ultimatum, anything can be the vessel in which fear arrives in you. This doesn't seem a particularly good state of affairs to be in, in terms of life, but we trudge on. The weight of all bad events of the future are constantly bearing down of us, but we continue, mostly without a care. This seems, in light of recent thoughts, rather foolish. I can only assume that we naturally developed fear as a form of stopping bad things happening to us as much, but at the same time developed a system of determining when this fear is actually necessary. Some bad things we simply accept, despite the repercussions that come with them. Is this bravery? I doubt it. He without fear is not brave, merely stupid. It is the one who has fear in his heart but acts regardless who is brave.

Should I take that into account? It's all well and good to invent a proverb and use it to justify an action to take place, but I think that's even more stupid. For the current situation the fear is dependant on information I'm unsure of. Is it a matter of probability? Perhaps. Would taking a risk help?

Risk isn't a notably advised course of action in terms of fear. If it is a matter of Action A leading to either Situation B or C, B being good, C being bad, but could be either, is it worth taking Action A? I can only assume it's a matter of whether the gain of Situation B outweighs the loss of Situation C.

A matter of weighing up the options then? Then the more information available the better, to accurately judge them.

Tricky.

Continuation and Conclusion

Well, I had no idea that yesterday's post would spark so many similar topics, and has somewhat put me off making this follow up post, since the topic appears to now have been done to death, but I want to conclude my thoughts on it, regardless of the amount of other posts made along the same lines.


Remaining on the level at which I left the previous post, I find it important to look at relationships in more detail. A connection between two people who feel a thus far unexplored feeling of mutually demonstrated love. That sentence alone, whilst in words briefly summarising, in emotion it explains next to nothing. What is it that drives the people together? That drives them to deviate from logic, normal thought processes and their own convenience? Why do they go to such means to please their object of love, even if it means their own loss? What, ultimately, drives them apart again? Why is there always (well, sometimes, I suppose) such bad feeling where there was once this force, which could accomplish such feats? The entirety of it, from a purely logical perspective, defies sense.

I think to some degree the first few questions can be answered rather easily. An innate desire to please plugs itself directly into the mind of the affected person. To please the object of the love pleases the one who loves, thereby explaining that which before made no sense. You would go to such extents, at your own loss, because you are -gaining- the pleasure of pleasing the other person. Therein lies the motive which was apparently lacking when seen from a logical perspective. I can only assume by nature (without being disturbing) that evolution has driven us so that those who gain pleasure from socially advancing with others are those that breed, making it a recurring trait. That is a perhaps redundant explanation however, as "Love" as it is now becomes more detached from breeding and reproduction.

But why the hate from failed relationships? This is what confuses me. I can only assume that the love and urge to please is built on an understanding that is mutual, and is proven not to be so at a late stage in a relationship perhaps there is a feeling of... betrayal? I'm unsure, the concept seems alien to me again. I'm certain that, placing myself in that situation I would feel the betrayal certainly, but if I were to superimpose the hypothetical situation to old and current situations I can't see hate forming. Sadness, to be sure, and an end to the urge to please, but ... hate doesn't seem feasible. Perhaps this is not a common view of this, or I am simply incorrect of how I would react? I think at this stage I understand myself sufficiently to make that prediction, but my inexperience in the topic once again obstructs any form of certainty.

On a related topic; cheating. Why? It makes even less sense. That's not strictly true, I suppose, from an entirely logical perspective, it makes perfect sense to gain as much enjoyment as you can, whenever possible, but I can't help but cringe at that. Why, when you have something so fulfilling as the ability to mutually please another, risk it so completely? Especially with kids involved, where so much more is at risk. As I said in the previous post, this view was instilled very early in life, and is one of the things on which I am steadfastly certain, but it irritates me that I can't understand why people would be drawn to it. A hole in my understanding, as it were.

Once again returning tomy current situation with those thoughts in mind, I wonder whether they actually help? They don't dispell the fear of loss of friendship, or the issue of confidence. I am beginning to think them inherent parts of the enture situation, which would have to be dealt with as they arrive, since no preparation is apparently able to be formulated.

A section of the topic not able to be blogged, I start to think at this point, so I'll stop here I think.

The Organ of Blood Circulation, and It's Attributed Emotions

(I feel the need to include a disclaimer at this point since I seem to have followers now; I told no one of Muted Musings, people simply found out about it. These serve as an internal analysis of my own mind and the events around me, and, by jove, I don't want to have to censor my own thoughts from others who happen to read them, so whilst I don't mind people reading, I would appreciate a nill amount of gossip. This is my mind; whilst I'm not locking the door, I do politely ask for the chairs to be put back on the tables when you leave, and for the last one out to get the lights.)

This is probably the most awkward topic of the few I've looked at so far. Those who know me know me well enough that I'm near enough physically incapable of discussing this without becoming incessantly quiet and inward, skating over the topic with "O____o" or just making a few jokes to change the subject. Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more apparent that it must be addressed soon, at the risk of my own loss of characteral development. Even with myself, I find it tricky to challenge my own reluctance to review it (I note that I've taken repetitive measures subconciously to avoid using the word "Love" (there, said it) as evidence of this), but I see this as a good time to get the issue over and done with so that I may progress as a person.

Now that I've accepted the discussion of it as an inevitable part of this post, I feel drawn to annhilate all of my issues surrounding it. Chiefly, I want to route the problem of my own inability to accept love as a part of my life. It has thus far in my life been something which simply happens to other people. That is not to say I have not loved, I am referring at all times in this post as requited love which can be shared. Immediately I see this as an alien concept, and directly afterward I am concerned with this interpretation. Mankind is a race of social interaction. We cannot exist without it, and it is influenced by everything we do. To limit it is to reduce one's own capacity for humanity. That said, I must bear in mind I am still at an early stage of life, but at the same time I would value some closure on the topic, or at least some understanding on my position.

Firstly, I want to address why I am so awkward around the topic, and explore in more detail the effects of this. I note from past experience (and to some degree, present experience) a fear of rejection plays its part. Logically speaking, this is a ridiculous fear. It makes logical sense to cast the die, rejoice if you win and live to play again another day if you lose, just as well off as when you started. But the fear remains. The human mind, with all its precognitive gifts, constructs a fearsome world around the concept of rejection. A reduction in self-esteem, humiliation, social degrading and the loss of a friend. To me, I can only see the final one to be of any importance to me, but it still presents an impassable barrier, by using probability and caution as a form of snaring my actions. On top of this, I observe the fate of others who jump this hurdle and crash into it, seeing them squirm as they are consumed by the unfortunate result of their gambit. I suspect my awkwardness runs deeper than this though. I can only assume I am either hiding something from myself, or it is an inherent part of my nature. Both of these explanations present their own problems. If I am hiding something from myself, I demand on principle to know what it is, for whatever reason I don't want me to know. If it is part of my character; am I flawed? It is beyond my control to edit this, my character is a result of earlier versions of me making choices which fit that incarnation of me in that point of time in varying scenarios, spanning back to my birth. If I have developed to be awkward and hesitant, then it is something which cannot be changed immediately, and even over time it is not my concious choice to make this change, and my burden to continue as I am. I suspect this a more likely conclusion, and unfortunately something which simply has to be accepted.

Moving on to more realistic aspects of the topic, I have to consider the implications of love, if the above were not important. As tricky as that is, I feel it integral to the solving of my own problems. At present, I can only really see this as a plausible solution with the use of my good friends, Hypothetical and his cousin; Situation. If, for sake of example, I were to find myself in a relationship, how would I act? Without being bigheaded (that said, I can't be the judge of my own arrogance, as I mentioned in some other post, so again, someone harm me somehow if I'm becoming arrogant) I would say I would be obsessively caring, and that would be my downfall (i.e., so obsessively nice to them it becomes sickening) but I really can't say for sure what I would be like. It is an entirely unexplored region of my life experience. I am certain of one thing though, from way back at the start of my life; No cheating. Ever.

After an hour of writing and Rhian refusing to sleep until I reach a conclusion, I feel I must either finish or finish later. A more feasible option would be to do this in two blogs, since it is such an expansive topic. But one more thing needs closure specifically, for tonight. My current situation (at this point I'm treading veeery carefully lest gossip spawn like vile mushrooms of attention) requires some attention if it is to pass without problems, or with success. One thing that I can be sure of is that friends are aware of the situation, whether or not I'm certain it exists or not, and an oppurtunity for the analysis of how others act when aware of something is available as such. Also, I perceive it as a challenge to my aforementioned awkwardness. An almost storybook hurdle to jump, overcoming the fear and whatnot clinging at me. Some analysis is needed, but either way, I think I can be sure it would act as a life lesson.

Will probably continue tomorrow (today), but in a seperate post maybe.

The Future, and Goals Therein

Derailing from last weeks look at the mind and social interaction, I've decided to break off from such matters until they become more problematic (or at least until Raffi and Rhian stop reading these blogs >_>).

A more realistic and ultimately useful topic would be the future, and all associated considerations. The accumulated weight of the oncoming seconds of life demand some attention sooner or later, so I may as well see what I think. On top of that, I'm bored on this ever-so-active 2:00 Sunday morn.

Immediately I am struck by an age old problem; knowing what the hell the future actually is. Prediction and fortune telling has degraded itself over time to a state of fairground farce, but that said it was never at a particularly high level of prestige to begin with. This is likely because of closer consideration to what people want to hear, as opposed to probability, observed circumstance and known facts. As I tenuously dip my toe in the icy waters of uncertainty once more, it occurs to me that "The Future" is a smidgeon too vague to build any decent account of what I am trying to find out. As such, I should probably divide this matter slightly. A quick breakdown gives me:

Career (education should probably be bunded here)
Life (Loool, obscurity)
Health

Going in that order, seems to be the easiest method for maximum comprehension.

In matters of career and academic matters I think my personal future is plain sailing until University where the seas become darker, the winds harsher and I encounter a series of islands which, when viewed from the sky, would likely spell "Here there be monsters". In a more in depth analysis GCSEs appear to be going well from an internal perspective, and A levels are set to be, whilst more challenging, at least not impossible. University represents, to me, the first major milestone of complexity and difficult matters, and, if I follow medicine as my career as planned, five long gruelling years (more than my complete time at Lutto College). However, I have a hunch that after that final hurdle the Secretary of Education has set up for me, before lurching back to his horribly clichéd castle shrouded in a permanent tempest, clear sailing resumes. I can begin the competitive clamber up the promotion ladder like so many mindless drones before and alongside me. If I were to speak in terms of goals in this matter, I would say that, through medicine, I would like to achieve a high wage, as well as the knowledge I'm helping people for a living. Call me a paradoxically soppy cynic, but it just gives me a warm mushy feeling to solve someone else's problem. Oh, and the Dr. title of course, because mushy feelings aside, there's nothing sweeter than the postman having to acknowledge your superiority over your neighbours.
From an impersonal perspective, career and educational futures appear to be a trickier topic. It is much easier to see one's own future, than try and divine the future actions, desires and abilities of another. This is probably a matter of what is inherently clear from one perspective, yet obscure and distorted from another. Looking at my own mind, at how I know things, as opposed to what I know, I can see a build up of long term intentions over time that have remained so steadfast they have 'become' goals and targets. Perhaps I am also becoming hypocritically arrogant, if I am so sure of myself in some of these goals that I'm not as worried as I suspect I should be, but if I am then being proven wrong will be punishment enough to snap me back to the straight and narrow. On a similar note, perhaps I am blinded by my own opinions and thoughts to see the truth, completing the impossible sliding puzzle of the future. Since I am unable to be sure of these matters, it would appear the best option is merely to... do my best. Unhelpful, vague and leaves me with the irritating notion that I just wasted half an hour following in depth thought processes to arrive at what any clown could come up with in twenty seconds. However, at least I can believe my version.

Matters of life are a bit trickier, as if the first was not hard enough. It would help if I were to outline this topic a bit more, I suppose. By 'Life' I mean relationships, standard of living, passtimes and friends. It occurs to me that these are a diverse range of concepts and considerations, so I better get cracking if I want to wake up before noon tomorrow. In terms of relationships I think I can with some confidence that I haven't a clue. What is not mindnumbing confusing is a negative certainty. On the one hand, I'm fairly certain I'm a highly awkward person whom no one can really connect with, but on the other, people have assured me that something will come along, and that things will be fine. It doesn't really help that everyone who has said this to me has had 'some' sort of highly painful emotional rollercoaster in the time I've known them alone, but at the same time these are always preceded or followed by something going right, which I'm yet to actually see happening any time soon. Is it this attitude that is proving itself right? Or is it just a matter of waiting for circumstances? I think this is becoming too broad a topic, and I want to avoid offshoots within posts. Therefore, I'll set it aside for later, settling for the certainty I've had for a while that nothing's going to happen in that area for a while yet. Standard of living is a much more longterm topic I can get my teeth into. Assuming I can amass some sort of savings to last me through university, I should be home and dry in this matter with my choice of high-input, high-output career path. That said, I'm concious that however confident/arrogant I become, I can never be certain of anything which has not yet occured. As such, I feel it necessary at this point to admit to myself that I have no plan, financially, to support my current lifestyle should something go wrong. As such, I feel it equally necessary to either formulate a plan, or alter my lifestyle. Neither can easily be done at three o'clock in the morning, so I'll set this aside too as something to consider. Passtimes of the future are another collection of ideas yet to come to pass. I feel drawn to play the "It's in the future, so who knows?" card because I feel angry at myself for doing so so many times so far anyway. I began this post thinking I could at least put something toward solving the mysteries of the future, and by damn I'm going to give it a decent ponder. If I were to look at my current passtimes I can see that I spend most of my time using something electronic, when working or at play, and that games become a predominant of my time. (Make of that what you will, I invited no one to read these blogs and see no reason to trouble myself with making a new account purely to maintain a privacy I would no doubt not really need anyway.) This is a consistent aspect of my life as far back as I can coherently remember, so I'm fairly certain that this will remain so unless some major event jolts me out of it, or, indeed, if life simply becomes too active to accommodate much more than work. I have to say this saddens me somewhat, but I reconcile in the knowledge it is a necessary step. In any case, both work and play will no doubt revolutionise themselves by the time I enter the workforce (and again by the time I reach oap status), so maybe no real consideration is needed there. I am fairly happy in my nerdy little world, and will no doubt at least play the puzzles page of the newspaper on the train or something. The future can be as pedantic as it likes, I know myself well enough to know I will always like puzzles. Friends in the future is a topic I've been squirming to avoid. My current group of friends is by far the best I've had so far in my blip of time on the planet, by such a large margin that the older generations of my friends become ... nothing. And this is what scares me about myself. If I am to cast myself to my 10 year old self, into the still forming mind in which I possess an upgraded model, as it were, I can see my friends of the time being the best I'd ever had ever. Yet now, they've drifted away, some of those that I counted as the closest even hate me, and I'm at a complete loss as to why (ah, well, that's not completely true, I suspect it's to do with what social labels they attached themselves to, and what opinions those labels in general have on me in my odd little ways (hint: most of them don't really like me :])). The point is, no matter how much I love my friends, the future threatens to rip them from me and transform them into strangers whilst my back is turned. However, before I was ignorant and innocent. Now, I am more scarred with the batterings of life, more mature, and armed with the knowledge of the past mistakes which lost me old friends. With this, I can make an effort to not lose what I have, even as they get further away. Whether or not I actually achieve this is down to the future's tiresome unpredictability, but I sure as hell have a better chance of safeguarding these guys from alienisation than the last group.

And this group is better anyway :] They're awesome.

Right, now, on the home stretch, I look towards health in the future. At present, I wouldn't say I was 'un'-healthy, but I'm far from the iconic pinnacle of what is apparently the best course of action. I am not ashamed to say that I don't really see any point becoming extremely healthy. A lot of illness is luck of the draw, so all that I can really do to any real effect is avoid the illnesses which 'can' be avoided and hope for the best. That said, hoping for the best has saved no one, and I am sure I will at some point have to contend with my own mortal coil at some stage. Since this is a matter which becomes increasingly likely as I stroll down the path of life, I notice that I really should try to enjoy life as it is as much as I can. Another clichéd piece of advice, I'm afraid, but again at least I can see the logic of it more clearly now. As such, I should probably avoid long term investments of quality of life (translation: Don't try to endure a tricky patch for a long amount of time to get to a better patch). Besides avoiding the threat of unhealthiness, I can see no real predictions to make at this stage, but can only hope fore the best.


Bah. I'm disappointed with this entry. I seem to be discussing how matters affect me personally more than the matters themselves, which, whilst useful as a method of scanning for metaphorical landmines, is not why I made the blog. I am taking it as an early blip on my self-scanning radar for arrogance and self-centred-ism, so if anyone who actually knows about this blog has read this far, give me a good slap next time you see me.

The Psyche, and Interaction

In a following pondering to the last blog, I feel compelled to think of how the mind must work, and whether this can be used to any useful end. More specifically, the human mind in a social context.

It occurs to me that to really analyse this, I need some sort of structure to adhere my thoughts to. A skeleton of subjects to which the flesh of debate can be applied, as it were, to create the final product. From an early skimming of this notion, I can briefly come up with thoughts about others, actions toward others, interpretation of others and self interpretation.

Starting at the very beginning (very best place to start, yada yada), I can only really observe the thoughts within my own mind about others. As far as I can conciously deduce, I can see no real pattern, although I note that I seem to derive most thoughts of others from conversation. I can think of no real "enemies" to find an underlying factor in, but looking back on things I dislike I suppose I could say I am annoyed by arrogance. This, under minor consultation with others, seems to be a near enough a blanket opinion among most, if not all, people. However, I can think of at least one example where blind arrogance does not deny a healthy social background. What occurs here? Is something being done besides arrogance to suppress the hate-inducing effect? Or is it closer related to an action by the observer of the arrogance? If the first, what is it? If the latter, what makes this example so different to first to cause this to come into play? I am more inclined to a mix of both of these possibilities, to which neither involved role would be aware. However, I think despite a lack of awareness of actions to others, and the influence these actions have on others' thoughts of thyself, I think some things are learnt over time. Perhaps this learning is the difference between the first example and the second. The second has found a method of suppressing the blind arrogance, causing others to be more forgiving of it, has subconciously noticed that this action causes this result and has proceeded to repeat this action indefinitely, more a sort of maintenance than repair. This, whilst interesting, is not an aspect I am concerned with currently, and so will investigate further at a later date.

I can see no correlation between the interpretations I take of others and the interpretations I take of myself. Clearly, a coherant understanding of the self is much easier than that of another. One's own mind is much easier to navigate, for one. However, I am drawn away from this obvious conclusion. Surely there must be a way to find the thoughts of another? Earlier, I saw an advert for a programme wherein the character was able to derive people's thoughts, feelings and subconcious from physical outlook. I am skeptical of this, but cannot deny some involvement of physical actions in the accurate deduction of anothers thoughts. I am convinced that the thoughts of another can be found in a much easier way, in the same way that I am sure of what I think of something instinctively without having to analyse my mind or observe my own movements. This is perhaps a bad example, as movements and physcial appearance should only really be a barometer of the mood of someone, as opposed to a book which can be read, especially of one's own thoughts. This is a topic which would be useful, yet maddeningly is the one which is hardest to crack. I could liken it to the age-old allegory of opening a box with the crowbar within it. I must find the answer in order to figure out how to find it.

Something to think about on the move, I suppose, as opposed to a mental nut which just needs to be cracked.

Day One -- Confuddlement and Constraints of the mind

Hallo World of Blogging! I've heard good things about you, so you're going to at least be a mildly useful internet phenomenon.

I'm at a loss, however, as to what I intend to gain from this. Insight, perhaps, or a chain of thought I can tug at. In addition to this, I'm clueless as to go about doing whatever I had in mind here, so I'll just wing it with a few topics over a couple of weeks and see what comes to mind.

Confusion is a topic I've been mulling over lately. A state in which you're deprived of information, or wherein the information you think you possess doesn't add up. Above anything, I find this kind of situation most irksome. How can you think through that which you do not know? I liken it in my mind to rowing a boat with a single paddle. Without complete set of correct information, you end up going in circles, falling off the watefall, hitting the passing bird, smashing your spine on the rocks below, and, in your dying moments, pondering how far is "too far" to push a metaphor.

What can only make such a situation worse, is if you have suspicions as to the missing pieces of the puzzle, but the edges are fuzzy and faded, and could more or less be completely wrong. Or worse, correct. An interesting question at this point would be; is an assumed idea of the future worth acting on? I am torn, at this point. On the one hand, it is within human nature to constantly try and predict and prepare for a future event. On the other, if preparation for one outcome has direct consequences on the other, what is the correct course of action? I am drawn to trying to keep all options clear, and I would think myself right in thinking that that decision would be the logical, safe choice. However, I can't help but feel that the choice presents an oppurtunity to which I would be a fool not to jump at, despite the threat of suspicions proving themselves right.

That said, it's probably important to look back on past confusions, to look for a method of resolving current and future ones. As far as I can recall, I've never really actively solved a state in which I find myself with insufficient knowledge. I seem to only be able to call to mind events wherein answers present themselves, or I just discard the situation as difficult. From that, I can only think of myself as... well, lazy and incapable. Surely there is a method to finding a solution. Logical deduction is all I can turn to, since my good pals paranoia and irrational jumps to conclusions seem to be giggling behind my back. So, problem one; are suspicions correct? Does it matter? What is the most appealing final outcome? How can it be achieved? What would be the negative outcomes of that?

Hmm.