heart

heart

Any person can make any rationalization for the person he will become. Although a child can have aspirations to change the world, the young adult has welcomed the fact that sometimes a pediatrician, a lawyer, a consultant, an analyst, or a banker can change and make a difference within the sector he resides in, perhaps incrementally, or maybe even eventually. And as years go by, the question "Why can I not do [x]?" has become easier and easier to answer. The desire for greatness slowly turns into an inclination of doubt, which morphs itself through the years into a complacent will for things to pass as "pretty good". Where do things fall apart? Is it just a process of growing up in which children have to face the trite perception of 'reality'? Or is adolescence a challenge for those who retain there goodwill and heart to truly become the clockmakers of the future generations?

I understand that there is very little "truth" about the world itself. Instead what we are presented with are many different understandings and interpretations of the world. If one man says, "follow your dreams," he is just as 'right', so to speak, as another who says, "focus on stability, let your passions remain hobbies". They are just different interpretations/theories of young adulthood created from their experiences which have ultimately shaped the lens through which they view the world. There's no "right" or "wrong" in that sense, just interpretations. Some interpretations are just more consistent than others is all.

If an apple falls to the ground, one may assume that the force is enacted universally (from different tests and observations), and thus presents forward a theory which can explain the given situation to be tested and retested to continually give forth consistent results. If the theory gives forth results which are consistent, then it is deemed as far as the human perception is concerned: true. But is it actually true? No, technically, we do not know for sure whether it will hold valid for every single possible situation, as the number of situations that can exist can be infinite. The theory is simply an interpretation of the presented situation. Situationally consistent results are as close to "true" as one can be. (much of the situations which we create our advice and understanding of the world are from a very narrow span of years and are for the most part personal. this explains why people have different theories of how the world works: because people are limited to their own experiences.)

Aquinas in Quodlibeta states:
"The truth of each thing, as Avicenna says in his Metaphysica, is nothing else than the property of its being which has been established in it. So that is called true gold which has properly the being of gold and attains to the established determinations of the nature of gold. Now, each thing has properly being in some nature because it stands under the complete form proper to that nature, whereby being and species in that nature is."

Situationally consistent results would be the standing ground for the established determinations. These established determinations in the sense I will be using them are principles. The principles which govern people and their influence do not change. In life, this is as close to a constant as we can get.

Situations themselves, change very slowly relative to the timespan we are allotted to either react to them. What does change however, and quite rapidly for the most part especially in young adulthood, is people. How people change: understand this and you will have the cigar. In life, people are the variables, and how effectively one understands and implements principles are the fucking coefficients. Well, not really, but something analogous of the sort.

In order for a person to change, he must undergo an experience which triggers an emotion. This word "experience" is used very loosely, basically anything a person experiences. This emotion triggers change. It is my theory that one must change when he undergoes any sort of experience, and the idea makes sense when one realizes that the strength of the resulting emotion is correlated directly with the degree of consequential change. The only time one can truly undergo no change through any experience is when he is handicapped in some way or manner to be apathetic. Generally, however, I think it is impossible for a normal person to be truly apathetic to any sort of experience. In the daily course of a day, as one experiences various emotions, he is given a choice in terms of his reaction to that emotion. The change is a choice the person has. The smaller the experience/emotion, the smaller the degree of resulting change. Remember: usually, the emotion we feel is out of our control. It is generally a product of how we were brought up to feel things and also family genes. The important factor within our control is how we react upon that given emotion. Feeling emotion is not something we can necessarily control, it usually just happens. The reactions are entirely in our control. We have the choice of reacting negatively to negative emotions and making them more and more negative; but we also have the choice of reacting positively to that certain emotion, creating a habitual response in time which therein sets the foundations for developing a strong character, and eventually nullifying the negative emotions. Remember, even in anger one can reactive positively and righteously. Negating the emotion is not always the right thing (angry Jesus table flipping was righteous) as well.

Emotion is a catalyst for change: positive or negative. I think the term emotion is misused much these days. One describes an insecure girl with temper problems as emotional. Not entirely true, as emotion has multiple dimensions. There is 1. emotional intensity, and (what is neglected much when understanding emotion) 2. emotional competency. So back to the description, no she's not emotional, she's an emotionally incompetent person who is also emotionally intense. The purpose of emotion is as a catalyst for change, in order to do something better or worse. Now, what is that "something"??

If he cannot remain the same, there are two ways a person can change: better or worse. Well, these relative terms have very little meaning when there is no point of reference (better than what? worse than what?). However, in order to have an accurate point of reference, it must be true. The point of reference is the standard to which we are able to judge ourselves. These standards/points of reference differ: here is the point of contention which humanity has been arguing since the dawn of its conception. Within religion and philosophy, and basically everything that people base their thoughts and action upon, people have within them some point of reference. And although one can have multiple points of reference, the point of reference itself is usually just one thing, so instead of better/worse, it's usually [x]/¬[x] to denote the singular form of the point of reference, and we can replace them with synonyms (ie. righteous/not righteous = righteous/unrighteous).

[The following will be extraordinarily concise and general]
Examples of people and their main (assumed) points of reference:
Jesus : Love
Buddha : Nirvana vs. Cycles of cessation
Jiro : Hard work

To be brief, for Jesus, with love as his main standard, to excel in life would be more loving, and to not excel in life would be to be less loving. As the point of reference is love in the Christian sense, emotions exist as a catalyst for love, or lack of. To change for the better in Buddha's stance would be one step closer to enlightenment, and to change for the worse, one step away. The same principles applies to all of us and whatever standard we choose to accept as our inherent truth (many of the time, without understanding the established determinations behind them).

Back to me: so what does this amount to? What is my point of reference? A point of reference should be something like a mission statement of core values and purpose. To what standard do I measure my excellence and accomplishments as a human being to?

Easily, I could say my point of reference is love, to mirror that of Jesus. But why that?

Is Christianity true? Does God exist? Well, to put it bluntly and based on the definition of "true" above: I don't know. In fact, nobody knows. However, just as impossible as it is to prove with solid evidence, it is also impossible to disprove. If someone was to show me undeniable and evident proof of some other being, or lack of, I would have to accept it as true and forego all my prior beliefs. For example, if I died and went to heaven and I met two headed Giraffe who said "I am the ruler of the universe, your God, Jesus, and all your beliefs were invalid. Believe in me, or go to hell," I would, at the expense of an entire life of faith and belief, have to forego my faith. Because a fundamental component of faith is a devoted passion to truth. Without it, we might as well be a cult.

If anyone was to put their beliefs over truth, such would be a tragic mistake. I believe because I think it is true, not I believe therefore it is true. A pursuit of truth is a righteous path.

The Judeo-Christian God is something I believe to be true due to my personal experiences. So if one was to ask me, "Does God exist?" I would say, "Yes, I think so. My understanding of the world (well, maybe lack of understanding) and personal experiences lead me to believe that the existence of a God is a much more viable conclusion than a lack of one" (my most cautious answer, really depends on my diplomacy).

So backtracking, I ask myself, why is it so difficult to keep that in line with other priorities and other standards to which I commit actions? Actions express priorities. I guess the question is, "What is stopping me from keeping focus (remember coefficients) on my point of reference?". Now this is a incredible question because it has so many factors based on problems, and problems as we know, are elusive and many of time buried beneath six feet of neurosis. If my point of reference is love, then what is pushing me to change negatively (less loving and committing apathetic or hateful actions) whenever I experience things with cause emotions within me?

Two things stop a person from loving, traditionally and quite obviously: sin, and the other not so obvious: fear. Sin, I understand is an transgression of God's will. To simplify, the seven deadly sins are as follows: pride, lust, greed, wrath, envy, sloth and gluttony. Each one of these is something I commit, and outward projection. Fear, on the other hand, is something that I feel, an inward reaction. Sin hinders the outward flow of love (bear with me), and fear hinders the inward flow of love. When one is committing a sin, it becomes much harder to love other people, and when people are afraid, it becomes so much harder for them to accept love. For the sake of succinctness, an example would be that an arrogant man only loves himself, and the insecure girl will let nobody love her for who she is because she's afraid to be hurt.

Another standard of truth I believe in is righteousness. But enough, I can go on about things like that for a while.

What I mean to say is that people have different systems of belief, of what works and what doesn't. There are many interpretations about what is important in life, what to achieve, what to pursue and how to pursue it. There is no one idea that is universally right.

What I want to do is to serve humanity, love God and love other people. I want to effectively put forth positive change within the lives of people and their ideas and how to think, speak and act. My valiant effort to pursue these things will create within my mind newly established determinations which I can set forth to the world. I want to show kids that it's okay to have dreams, and that "reality" as so many people call it, is exactly what you make it. I believe in other people.

That is my plan. Honestly, that's it. The two things holding me back thus far are sin and fear. I seek to be more righteous and courageous. Everyday through the things I experience, I will change forth to a better person. And understanding these things, I see why so many people have found their niche in the world where they can effectively minister positive change to close people they know. But I know understand why I want to do so much more, and although it may seem naive, misguided and silly, I still find unfathomable hope for a bright future. In a place of limitless opportunities, the only limits that stop me are from myself. Life is a system with many different principles at play, and I try to understand it more and more everyday. I want to listen and understand people more, because without understanding, it is impossible to love. I want to share with people more as well.

In a relatively short time, I've experienced a lot, to say the very least. I've been fortunate enough to have been presented with a number of options for what do with my future. I've always been aware that 'life is difficult', but my tiny interpretation of that idea is a little less tiny now. Life is daunting.

I think people are like birds in a bird eat bird world. There are many that choose to live inside cages so that they do not get eaten by the bigger birds outside.

Not making choices makes life easier to deal with. Just letting things come as they go and accepting opportunities at face value is comforting. School, for example, is not daunting (relatively speaking, not to downplay it's role). It is a set path which has defined guidelines for the typical student to follow: HS, College, Choosing A Major, Completing Bachelor's, Master's (optional depending on field), Salary, Raise Work Vacation Repeat. Neither is inheriting a family business. Needless to say, of course there are certain traumas that may come attached within that defined parameter, but as I said, those guidelines and restrictions eliminate much of the fear/apprehension typically felt during the process. Yet many times, from what I've noticed, it comes at the cost of foregoing the question "Why am I doing what I am doing?".

As I learn more and more about the world around me and myself, I understand that there are many things of the trending mindsets of which I do not fuck with. "People don't do what they want to do, they just usually end up doing what they end up doing" is such an example. It can be a applicable statement, but can "Do what you want to do,"; it simply depends on who is saying it. As I said, there's no "right" or "wrong". Just better understanding. People are different, and that's okay. I'm different, and that's okay too. Nobody is crazy, just different understandings. The spectrum of things to be understood is so large that a single human being could never understand all of it, rather, he just understands bits and pieces, which then create his general worldview. People are limited in that sense.

And I understand these things, I understand more clearly why the number of people that want to change the world gets smaller and smaller as people become older and older. Insecurities become deeper imbedded under layer of neglect and neurosis. Challenging the status quo becomes something that is only really done in movies. As this happens, our joints and mental reflexes become rusted with daily comforts. "Simple joys" take the place of greater and more meaningful joy found within progress and learning, when in fact, both should be cherished.

I want to challenge the status quo. People tell me, this is how you should do it, and I say, I don't think so, I think this is how you do it. A lot of times, the status quo can be wrong, and it would be dangerous to follow it. I believe I can and I believe that many people around me can too. Much of the world that has been created thus far has been created by people not so different from me and we, when they were twenty at least. There's so much to do.