Archive for January, 2011

So I was just considering this article just now:


I just wanted to say that the impulsive fear that would drive you away from a circumstance of physical threat is not the only fear that exists to govern the motions of an individual.

Terrifying paragraphs of text!:

(Click to enlarge) The amygdalae, here shaded in red, are considered responsible for human fear; impulsive fear, rather.

The article that I have provided is only an address towards impulsive fear; impulsive fear is instinctive fear. It is what drives us to flee from instances threatening to life, and has no authority over decisions that are more subconsciously considered by the mind. Fear is the one characteristic that exists to contradict the destructive potential of desire; human desire is infinite, and it is only fear that exists to keep it in check. If a woman’s fear has truly been eradicated, then, operating with the utmost consent from the mind and operating with the objective of providing itself with what is truly an non-acquirable fulfillment, she functions and survives without constraint on any activity; she functions with an absolute exhibition of desire; a desire to satisfy desire. If she is angered, nothing will exist to argue against brutal action in retaliation to that anger. She will lash out against the physical environment, and invoke harm upon individuals of particular misfortune, and there would be no moral obligation, no fearful inhibition to discourage here against such actions. She will consume, languor, and kill without the slightest presence of imagined hesitation. If it is one thing that accompanies her desire, then it will not be fear.

So really, the example provided in the link is only an instance in which impulsive fear has been destroyed, thus giving no reason to avert physical harm. The fear that acts in contradiction to a likely proposal of, “Should I buy a banana?” is immeasurably different from the alternative of, “Should I enter a genuinely haunted house?” however. What would compel you to buy or restrain yourself from buying a banana would be concerns over pricing, quality, and taste; if you choose to ignore the purchase because you believe it is too expensive, it was not very admirably handled, or if should be no particular culinary indulgence, then those are all derivatives of fear that are determining the nature of your action.

“Yeah, but it’s just common sense,” you might argue, “To avoid a lion with claws, or taking loans from a bank on the brink of financial collapse.” You’re right, but if your common sense is demanding that you deprive yourself of a certain satisfaction; if your common sense is convincing you not to do something, then that is your fear. Any further discourse would necessarily involve argument concerning the precise definitions of fear, and that would almost certainly be a tiring argument of no particularly meritable value in productivity.

It did rain today, by the way. Not in sufficient enough quantities to induce the waters to flood, but rain is awesome nonetheless =)


Read Full Post »

Pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath, lust.

It really seems to be that if you explained what defined these seven sins as they lie presently, you’d be providing description to human nature overall. Whether they’re truly sinful or not, I imagine that every human has committed themselves to these feelings at some point in their lives; I certainly have, and all of them are commonly witnessed experiences.

Anyway, religious mythology (If mythology is the proper word to use) has always given me interest. There’s a certain cardinal majesty to it all that provides a notion of immensity when you read about it, and it’s exciting.

I mean, why not?

As for change, one question to ask yourself is why don’t you change? What prevents you from it, and would it truly be beneficial to remain in your present state; to maintain your slavery beneath current indulgences and to continue to exploit pleasure for its worth through whatever abuse you administer to your form.

Humans are not psychologically induced to change. Why don’t I change? I choose not to change in defence of the present condition of my conscience, which strives to protect itself from annihilation. A change of personality would require an evolution of conscience that must necessarily result in the destruction of what is current; an occurrence that is not at all favourable to the one thing that frequently aims to deny the very concept of inexistence, that feared, threatening end.

If I changed, much of what I am would disappear in order to capacitate what’s to come.

That’s probably why so many people don’t like tremendous change; it forces certain habits, both good and bad, into obliteration.

I suppose there’s a certain fantastical charm that coincides with the harbouring of such convictions.

Read Full Post »

^Let the title be the first part of the approaching sentence:

This picture is sucky and boring, but I really couldn't think of anything more appropriate.

The routine features devotion to a scheduled lifestyle where we endure a continuous monotony for weeks on end, forever in expectation of the next holiday season. I blogged earlier about, “Desire and fear,” the title of which sounds unsettlingly philosophical, now, upon reflection, even though it’s just a bit of an observation. It really doesn’t matter how genuinely you might enjoy your lifestyle or career; repetition dulls the mind, and through frequent repetition it’s guaranteed that interest will be lost. The further we becomes involved in a schedule, the more repulsive the very concept of waking up at 6am everyday becomes.

To compensate for our routine, we look towards entertainment. There are all sorts of methods that are used to pleasure ourselves in order to make the struggles of life just a little more bearable. Much of a person’s devotion to sport, television or computers may just be a result of his requirement for a leisurely occupation that gave him relief, however momentary, from his obstinate schedule.

With many people trapped within an agenda directing themselves towards entertainment for their relief, the world immediately becomes more greatly concerned over our entertainments; entertainment begins to evolve into more of a distraction that what it’s worth. So why would you want to read-up on politics and have some concern for what your next government will be when fashion and lifestyle present themselves in a magazine or on a television screen, demanding your attention?

Truly, there’s nothing bad about entertainment, but when so much of a modern household can remain attached to television, the whole issue becomes disconcerting. I’m not going to be cliche and proclaim this to be a governmental conspiracy, or say something within the nature of, “Sell your webcams because big brother is watching you through them,” but it’d be foolish to neglect the reality that all media associations exercise a remarkable power of their audience as a result of how heavily attractive a distractive television can become.

Of course, entertainment would be a lot less distractive if only our schedules could be relieved. If only we had more time for leisure and less for academics or physical labour, the internet would not be such an attractive enjoyment to the mind; I suffer from this myself and would probably involve myself less with the computer if only school wasn’t quite as occupying.

A similar consequence was trying to be achieved by the Germans leading up to World War Two. Highly affordable radios were produced by factories and sold in shops. People purchased them to fulfill their requirements for entertainment; but such radios had a very short range and could only receive signals from local radio stations. The result was absolute control over what the German population understood and heard.

Tl;dr? – Scheduled lifestyles draw us to entertainment. Devotion to entertainment can distract from matters of greater importance (No, not your college degree; more like the social condition of your neighbourhood). Through media proliferation, governing authorities have the capability to communicate whatever they like to the human population with a concerning rapidity.

I’ll probably try organising more light-hearted posts next time. Kinda at a loss as to what exactly would pass as being light-hearted though :|

Read Full Post »

Desire and fear are to the two primary driving emotions. Many of our decisions can somehow be traced towards a conflict, and an inflation or diminishing of either. It is desire that compels us to reach towards a likely opportunity, and prefers to act in defiance of all boundary, and it is fear that counteracts what is potentially reckless desire, providing us with the foundation for all known inhibition.

It is desire that presents us with the idea of doing something; it is fear that discourages us from ever doing it.

Likewise, fear may compel us towards a particular task because we are afraid of the consequences of inaction, however desire argues against it.

Read Full Post »

“All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.”William Shakespeare

So yeah, more Civilization IV quotes.

So I’m just going to present to you what I believe is a pretty exciting interpretation of it. Of course, in the original Shakespearean publication, it was followed by a description of one’s life through its seven proposed stages, although that really only touches upon the final portion of the quote, that being, “And one man in his time plays many parts.”

Mine is that it bears the implication that our bodies are mere representations of ourselves, and that we are forever in enactment of the roles we want ourselves to fulfill, when our true selves lie within the throne of the soul, that being the human body, forever prohibited from direct interaction with others.

Really, peek at yourself in the mirror and I can guarantee you that there will be minute changes in your expression. When gazing in the mirror, you are not truly looking upon yourself, but you are looking upon the image that you prefer other people to see. Even if horrendously undressed and badly prepared, your eyebrows, mouth and cheeks will still position themselves in a manner that satisfies you whenever you should bear witness to your reflection.

So our bodies are not really ourselves; they’re imposters – no, that would be too harsh a word; they’re representatives of ourselves that are used under the circumstances of human interaction and, of course, for the purposes of living. As much as aesthetics such as your hairstyle and clothing may indeed be suggestive of your interests in fashion, there is nothing about a man’s mohawk that implies what he is in personality.

We are all slaves to perception in one way or another, and if it is not the perception of others that we fear, then it is at least our own perception of ourselves. There’s no way in which this might be relinquished.

Also, Happy New Year! ^_^V

Read Full Post »