Writing Samples (December 2010)

ENTRY 1 - DECEMBER 2010

Does it make sense that we want unqualified equality/reciprocity (especially from others), when at the same time we try to create an identity of ourselves? Why is it that we are engaging in these two opposing tasks simultaneously? 

The biggest indicator that we crave equality to be this defining principle that governs our interactions with others is our intolerance of injustice. Every time we experience an act of injustice, of something that is completely unfair for NO reason, it evokes this huge anger within us. The basis for this anger is that it should not have happened because we deserve to be treated equally, right? That seems like common sense.

There are all these rational arguments for equality, stemming from religious texts to Kant to Rawls. The Golden rule and Kant’s categorical imperatives of “act so that the maxim of your action could be willed universally” and Rawl’s veil of ignorance all reveal why equality is in everybody’s interest. Rawl’s veil of ignorance captures it well: if we placed ourselves behind a veil of ignorance where we knew nothing about ourselves, then wouldn’t the basis for our actions derive from the principle of equality? This seems to be the smartest move to make since you would have no idea at which receiving end you’re going to be at. And I think it’s true that our most reasonable choice would be to choose fairly if we had no clue of anything who was what or who will get what.

Equality, in that sense, assumes a throne-like divine aura. But I don’t think that’s the case. It is not something beyond us, constructed in pure abstraction. It is from within is, that’s why we desperately seek it so bad. It’s one of those unqualified good things that we have intuitive grasp in. This is why the concept of morality even makes sense at all. The idea of morality would have no grounding if we didn’t believe in a “right” or “wrong” way. The defining line for actions with right or wrong deviations IS a line of justice or equality or whatever name you want to give it. The words used to identify this line have been interchangeable throughout history, but the essence of it still remains.

Ok so my problem is this though: this principle of equality drives us, I don’t disagree with that. Yet from when we are kids till when we die, even though not many of us are consciously aware of it, are we also not engaged in the task of trying to create an identity/understanding of ourselves? 

This need to feel a connection or attachment to something is our way of saying “yes this is me” or “I accept/feel”. We all like to pretend that we have no baseline to our beliefs/ideas; that we are these completely free spirits that are not attached to anything. Yet the task of simply moving your hand only makes sense if you already presuppose your ability to enact force within your physical environment. You BELIEVE in movement. You may not know why or how, but you do. To have no beliefs is like being completely paralyzed, both mentally and physically, since you can’t even move because to move would imply a degree of acceptance of certain beliefs. I don’t know where I’m going with this anymore.

It just seems contradictory – this task of creating an identity, whereby we attach ourselves to beliefs/things – when what we also want is to be treated in a manner that is free of any identity/personality markers. We want both. That is the problem. It isn’t easy to say “Well I want the first one more than the second one” because you can’t erase this notion of “identity” from humanity. Human beings define all the time. Through their thoughts. Through their actions. We are constantly engaged in the act of “understanding” that kind of demands a system of definitions so we can create or see the final picture of X, before we move onto the next. Yet we feel outrage and a great deal of passion for injustice. This brings me back to the whole notion of whether justice itself is another man-made concept. But if it was truly man-made, since I am also human, I should be able to relinquish myself form it. I belong to the same essence of whatever it was that created it so the power to destroy it also lies within me, IF it’s man-made. YET I cannot. Nobody can. So really, ___ ?

ENTRY 2 - DECEMBER 2010

Jackie said every word means more than the one before – but if that’s the case, why do some words never leave us? I’ve had so many words thrown at me. Those words inflicted a lot of harm yet in retrospect, they are but words. The good ones – the ones that lifted me and carried me through my tunnel days – unfortunately suffer the same fate as the bad words. Actions are different from words apparently. In one obvious aspect (it entails more human labour) actions are different than words. Yet despite our attachment to this belief that actions carry more weight than words, I’d like to argue otherwise. Actions suffer the same fate as words in the end – all that’s left is the event but not the moment. The moment is only accessible by the cursed present.

Many people believe the present contains both the past and future, but what they have instead is something so frail that once it’s shattered, there is no putting it back together. And this, of course, is our beloved “mind”. Our memories of all past actions/words rest on this hidden premise that the human mind is capable of storage. I do not disagree with that. It’s just that, with storage comes something else. And it’s this something else that sustains the weight of the actions/words we experience in life. Therefore it is this something that deflates or injects meaning, and we are all vulnerable to it so I know of no human being that’s free from this. Ok back to these words vs. actions thing. I started this because I find it amusing that many people fight for this idea that actions are lot stronger than words when actions themselves fall to the same blade that cuts words. But before, there are a few obvious objections against this alleged distinction. 

1)  Words themselves are actions – uttering words also requires a particular sort of human labour. Sometimes it takes hours of preparation simply to utter a couple of words.

2)  Words, like actions, once received by another person cannot be taken back in the same way an action cannot be undone.

3)  Words, like actions, promise and always deliver a meaning. However it is always interpreted to fit the other person’s understanding. The transmission is never complete. Communication – the best communication we have is with ourselves where no meaning can be hampered or twisted that way. Once you say it/do it to someone else, it is no longer your effort but also their effort with respect to how they take it in

ENTRY 3 - DECEMBER 2010

Leisure provides ample opportunity for reflection, creativity, and movement. The absence of all external forces allows you to finally move where you want – or at least to become aware of where you are moving. Leisure permits the right amount of time for projects to flourish. Yet leisure does not only illuminate the human spirit but it also lets the mind become aware of the enclosed lines that determine its surroundings. Whether these lines are limits, boundaries or merely shapes/structure varies for each mind. Nonetheless, with leisure comes the awareness of these lines.

Often what is movement here and there is seen as a distraction during leisure time. Yet every distraction, like every move, does change the immediate state of affairs. To identify which distractions are useful and which distractions hinder one’s quality of life is not a task I can handle. To define or to state meaning or to infer relations scares me. You must be standing – have a moment of tranquility to let you see – yet I am not standing. I am falling. I wish I could be flying instead the present condition of falling persists.

Back to the idea of leisure now. I find it fascinating what we do to our prison inmates – we torture them with leisure. All that solitude time is really another form of open space and open time to think at your discretion. And what is the main baseline for leisure if not thinking at one’s discretion. The thoughts may be productive, destructive or simply numb the mind. Yet it is a gift that no human being can instil in you (for it is yours naturally); they can only allow/hinder your ability to engage in leisure.

What I have right now and have had for the longest time is this “leisure”. To me I identified it as loneliness but the baseline for both leisure and loneliness do not merely intersect but coil around one another. The shape becomes such that either or looks deformed in the absence of its counterpart. As such, even though I am experiencing loneliness now, I still happen to be engaging in leisure. What I am doing right now – writing on this paper – could be viewed as a productive leisure activity. Me sitting still with tears rolling down my face and an increasing ache in my heart can be viewed as a counterproductive activity.  Moping, wallowing in self-pity, re-creating the past to keep the almost burnt out memories alive – these activities bring one further to mind paralysis. Now this is where I think leisure makes its mark as a significant trait belonging to human beings.

Leisure is a time where one can let the mind move. This movement can be just as refreshing as cold water on your face on a sunny day, or it can feel like jumping off a cliff. But it is this act of doing – whether it’s purely in thought or in actions – that distinguishes the active mind from the paralyzed one. The paralyzed mind is not dead. It would cease to exist if that were the case. Yet this mind is only watching; observing everything with no reactions that could spur movement. I am unaware of how long this state of mind can persist in human beings – if it does at all. But it is the antithesis to the idea of mind. This gives the mind a shape, a structure. I don’t know if that is the case. Just like how I can never reach the sky, but only gaze at its points here and there, the same goes for the mind. I am aware it exists because I experience it every day. Yet I will never know it entirely.

What constitutes the sky are elements that’s ever-changing and what sets its limits are my own eyes and my peripheral vision. For if my eyes did not stop at the periphery but extended all the way to the back of my head, then the sky no longer fits a rectangular plane of vision but rather a spherical one. The main point of this is to demonstrate that the sky itself does not consist of any boundaries (though scientists will beg to differ); but it’s our eyes that posit the boundaries. I’ve come back to appearances now – break.