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.