Indebtedness - good or bad for you?

The dictionary defines a debt as a condition or state of owing something to another. This indebtedness may simply be of a perceptive nature or becomes legally binding in accordance with the laws of a people living as a commune. An indebtedness becomes an obstacle in your perceptive reality if such is morally and legally binding in nature. But debts can be productive as well, especially as a growth structure of our economy.

The guidelines to consider before incurring a debt - will it be for an advanced non-productive personal expenditure? Or the means to effect a value-added outcome? Such may be the case as business debts, where other people's money may be used as a leverage to generate and maximize productivity, hence a productive debt.

People often confused personal consumptions as a productive indebtedness. The tendency to incur debts for a personal consumption as if it can be leveraged as a value-added activity by delaying payment, actually increased expenditures as interest is charged for the cost of owing money and indubitably be compounded to the initial debt. Not unless one had some magical tricks to vanish from such or somehow inherit an indefinite debt moratorium. Bottom line gauge - if you earn before spend or the other way around, does make or unmake your economic stature.

Do read my article on the Fallacy on poverty

Sleep and consciousness

The definition of the word "sleep", to rest one's mind and body by becoming temporarily unconscious. Some say sleeping is likened to being temporarily dead. Actually, sleeping is an activity when damaged living tissues and dead cells are replenished and rejuvenated to life, in contrast to being dead which sets off "rigor mortis" proceeded by decomposition of the physical. Ironically, we use up and destroy our bodies' living tissues every moment we spent being awake.

If you ever think that sleeping is a waste of your time, think again. The limited human brain can only experience so much of consciousness. The events you are experiencing as if time and space is moving forward is actually your brain cells being used or filled up by physical processes. This actually depletes the physical brain as cells are exchange for perception of (metaphysical) time and space - the aging process of our brain. As you perceive, your brain matures. The brain can deplete up to about sixty-five human calendar years net of sleeping or "recharging time". Presumably, a body and brain more deprived of sleeping is naturally depleted more than one which pause and recharges every often. Ideally, for every hour you spent depleting body and brain cells by being awake and conscious, you need half an hour to recharge or replenish by being asleep. The ratio then is one to half. In a twenty-four hours cycle, if you spent sixteen hours awake, you would need the remaining eight hours asleep, more or less, variable on habit and genetic make. Conversely, if you are the type who stays awake most often that you max out your available sixty-five human calendar years of waking time, your body will naturally counteract by finding ways to demand an earlier phase of an everlasting sleep.

Parallax: Consciousness is the perceptive reality which you experienced as time and space moving forward. It is a process whereby your physical body and brain depletes living tissue cells in exchange for the perception of time and space. Because the body and brain are physical, it will relate to a perceptive reality bound by physical limitations.

Parallax: Observe for instance an ant, its brain is so small compared to a human. We see the ant because our brains are way larger than it. But the ant sees us not. Even after stepping or crashing it, would just be in total blankness as to what in the world happened. It could even simply put the blame on accident, bad luck or curse, just as humans do whenever something happened beyond their analytical prowess. When comparing our inability to see beyond the physical, we become as ants. We combed the uttermost of space using the produce of technology and gadgetry, in the hope of finding the origin of life, not realizing that time and space exist because, we are not limited to five senses as we have always pressumed to be. We became ignorant as our perceptive realities were confined to what is supposedly only five senses - sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. The instruments we used were inept, as themselves were designs of the physical, to detect the physical. Notwithstanding our brains being too small and limited of perception and channels compared to that of our creator, maker of life. Imagine a living entity not bound by a physical body and brain. No time nor space.

We may never see a totality beyond a perceptive one because, our brains persistently interprets a reality bound by time and space. Transcended beyond a perceptive reality which is not physically perceivable, no time, no space, is a summation of totality - potentialities, possibilities, alternatives, intents, good and evil. Our creator laughs at us just as we did at the ants.

"Death", nothingness

"Death" is a word we used to describe an extreme loss by oneself or another. It is our mind's perception of what could be an extreme loss of a living. The concept of fear, danger, loss, destruction, pain and death can be deemed as correlative sensory valuation of events. Our perception of an impending destruction which may consequently lead to losses, pain and death instill in us the sense of fear and danger. Fear of danger instinctively preserves one from destruction, loss, pain or death.

Parallax: The living could readily perceive another being as "dead" but cannot prove the reality of "death" by itself. To prove that "death" is an impending reality would require one to be dead then return to life with the facts of an afterlife. The premise that none is able to accomplish such feat qualifies "death" as a mere symbolism in one's perceptive reality. The perception and fear of impending danger and loss in correlation to "death" seemed more real than death itself.

Parallax: "Death" symbolizes a loss of life such as that of a love one, relative, friend or a more profound loss as that of enthusiasm, rationality, will, respect, values etc. Losing the latter may be a greater evil than the perception of death itself. Certain eventualities in life may also bring about a far greater destruction, agony and pain than death itself. Negative attitudes and emotions, irrationality, depression, lost of a love one and agonizing pain may instill a "death wish" upon upon one whom lost the will to continue living.

Parallax: The symbol "zero" compared to "death". Zero which symbolizes nothingness may not be a number. If it is a number, it must be something. If it is something, then it isn't nothing. To say that zero is something contradicts its concept which is, that of being nothing. It couldn't be a number as a number represents something however small or big. Zero is one's perception of what may be nothingness, not even space. Death.

http://earlvanze.multiply.com/journal/item/12/My_thoughts_on_Death

Terrorism, Violence, Crime, War and Fear

The dictionary's definition for terrorism (noun), to intimidate with the use of force and threats, to terrorize, threaten, terrify, fill with terror and intense fear.

To intimidate or cause fear to whom? To the one whom another assumed to be fearful? From its definition, we can logically infer that "terrorism", being a subjective perception of one who assumes a threat, can only exist in the mind of the same who perceives such a threat. Terrorism is not the same as violence (noun), which is defined as the use of actual or physical force to effect a physical outcome. Terrorism only exists in the perceptive reality of the fearful while violence can exist whenever one's internal physical world is confronted with actual physical force.

Parallax: Only the fearful knows an instrument of threat. A threat exist only if one knows fear. Fear being an impulsive emotion and perception of danger. It takes a person who knows fear to assume another perceives likewise. One who chose a weapon as a threat is fearful of how such weapon is perceived as being dangerous. Being fearful causes one to assume another is likewise. Hence, a "threat" is at most a presumption of perception by a mind capable of perceiving fear.

Parallax: The person whom one assumes as making a threat may not be making any. As threat is a perception and interpretation of the mind, it is subjective and dependent on the presence of fear in any mind. The person whom one assumes as making a threat may not need to make any if the intention was to inflict harm. If violence was necessary to effect an outcome, it would have been resorted to regardless of whether such was initially perceived by anyone as a threat or not. One who chose to make a threat must be most fearful of any consequences of any action, which is why a threat is resorted to instead.

Parallax: If a conflict is not resolved on a metaphysical level, it will take its natural recourse on a physical level. This is the natural balance of life. One either becomes a victim or beneficiary to the circumstances of causes and consequences. Let's dissect the analogy for instance a hostage situation. People often assumed hostage takers are threatening? If the hostage takers are threatening, they wouldn't have taken any hostages but killed people outright. They took people as hostages because they were themselves very fearful of what people may inflict on them had they not taken any. Because some people reacted to a hostage situation in such way as to cause the presumption of fear is present, hostage takers eventually decided to use the emotion of fear to their advantage. If fear was never presumed by either parties in conflict, no hostage situation would have occurred but actual violence instead.

Parallax: One's perception of fear, threat or danger does not qualify the act as terrorism. Circumstances can be perceived in many different ways. To a child, the most terrifying experience may be a visit to a physician while an adult may panic at the thought of anything resembling a weapon being directed at one. Neither scenarios posed any actual violence. The physician actually saves lives while that soever resembling a weapon may actually be a toy. Yet the perception of threat made both the circumstances of being the physician and the one pointing a toy be perceived as life threatening.

"Terrorism" is also often misconceived to connote anything one cannot comprehend a logic or reason for being. After witnessing a violent act, "WHY" would be the first question that occurs in one's mind. When people fail to comprehend a reason for any act of violence, the easiest justification would be to dismiss such as terrorism.

Metaphysical causes for violence, crime and war. In any system, there exists a counter system. Since there is no absolute certainty of infallibility for whatsoever, the system of a life we employ as our perceptive realities may be favorable to one while oppressive to another. Systems often counteract, equalize and balance itself through external metaphysics or internal physics. Metaphysics provide the causes for each physical consequence. When the metaphysical causes or reasons does not justify a physical consequence and outcome, dissent, issues and conflicts arise to counteract the imbalance. Conflicts which were not resolved at the metaphysical or reason stage may eventually transcend to a physical or consequential stage. The pragmatic maxim provides that whatever is necessary for an outcome is consequential to its cause.

Whatever is not balance will balance itself, either through metaphysical causes or physical resolution. If physical resolution is resorted to, we can define such acts as violence or war but not necessarily "terrorism". If such acts are born of greed or economic necessity, it may be a crime but not necessarily "terrorism".

By its definition, the word "terrorism" is an act which can only be qualified by intent. Terrorism cannot be qualified or proven based on one's perception of fear, danger or threat. By definition, to qualify an act as "terrorism", one must first be able to prove the primary intent of the act was to sow terror and second, the presumption of fearful people is present. An act of violence or war against another may not have any intent to "terrorize" than inflict actual damage. Because its consequences may be perceived as threatening to the agonized, such act is often misconstrued as terrorism.

Let's dissect the analogy of bombings for instance. The only thing that can be qualified and proven by such act is that of violence resulting to destruction and death. Fear and terror perceived by one as an after effect or consequence of destruction had no bearing on the bombers' primary intention, which is to kill and destroy. Hence such is clearly an act of war. The inability to comprehend intent does not qualify the presumptuousness of another. What one does or not comprehend doesn't make an other's intent differ. Had the bombers' intent been to "terrorize" as what people were alluding to, they would have used a dummy, not a real bomb followed by several others. Hence, the logical descriptive term for bombers should be "enemy" rather than "terrorist". The misconception of these two words cause confusion in the mind and eventual detachment from reality. Confusion and detachment can lead to apprehension. Ironically, whoever wants people to misconceive and misinterpret must be the real terrorist amongst all.

In summary, "terrorism" is a word people often abused and misused, to vindicate oneself and persist in a conflicting state of lapses and misjudgements, presumably for the welfare of humanity in general.

Morality, Sin and Guilt

Is there such thing as a sin? What is a sin? The dictionary definition being - Sin (noun), an offense or fault against morality. But what is morality? Again, the dictionary's definition being - Morality (noun), principles or standards of rightness or wrongness of conduct or action. Principles and standards of and by whom? To whose standards and principles of morality should one based rightness or wrongness? Self? Society? Church? School? Government? Family? Friends? From my other article, we are aware that any claim to infallibility by oneself becomes the fallibility in itself. Who then stands infallible to dictate a standard of morality whereby righteousness can be based? Because the standards of morality depend on others' perception of what is right or wrong, we can logically infer that morality is subjective rather than objective, fundamentally biased and opinionated, being a product of one's perception. Hence what is moral or immoral and sinful for another may be contradictory with respect to your perceptive reality.

Morality standards by oneself. Because the standards of morality for rightness and wrongness is based on one's perceptive reality, it would be logical to infer that a sin or fault against such standards can only be proven on a subjective and personal perspective. It would be illogical to accuse anyone other than yourself of sinning because the only person you can objectively prove as sinning is yourself. Only you will know if any such personal standards of morality have or not been offended by yourself. Only you can prove that yourself is sinning based on your standards. These sins or offenses may or not manifest as guilt or remorse.

What is guilt? The dictionary's definition being - guilt (noun), a feeling of self-reproach from believing that you have done something wrong. The definitive objective criteria for guilt - the feeling of reproach by oneself plus the belief or perception that what was done was wrong. By its definition, guilt is a perception by oneself that an offense had been committed by oneself. Hence, you can accuse anyone of being guilty all you want but the only person whom you can logically and objectively prove as guilty is yourself.

Has one sinned whenever feeling guilty? As guilt is definitively a subjective feeling, you may actually experience guilt without having committed any offense against oneself nor as a collective people. One may simply feel guilty based on "out of culture" standards of morality. Conversely, one may have sinned but felt no guilt nor remorse. Guilt or remorse therefore is inconsequential to sinning and vice versa.

Morality standards as a collective people. The objective criteria to determine sin may be dependent on one's perceptive reality. Your perceptive reality is consequential to the extent to which your involvement is with standards of morality. You are actually in charge of whom others shall influence your life. For instance, you can choose to live alone or with others. If you live alone, only your standards of morality if any, shall determine the basis of whether you had or not sinned and committed any offense against yourself. If you live or coexist with others, your standards of morality if any as a people, shall determine the basis of whether you had committed any offense against yourself as a collective people. If your perceptive reality includes others collectively, their standards of morality if any (being subjective in nature and however irrational, absurd or stupid it may have been perceived by you), will nevertheless permeate over yours and any offense committed by you against the standards of the whole will be perceived as a sin against yourself representing the collective people.

To illustrate an extreme, say you live in an island solely owned by yourself. Your standards of morality will then be solely based on what you think is right or wrong, assuming there are any. The only person you have to deal with is yourself and whatever yourself think is moral is unquestionably right. But say one day you decided to cross the waters and lived in another island with others. The moment you stepped in, your standards of morality if any, shall be subjected to the collective approval of the other people living as a commune. Whatever may have been right or wrong in your personal standards may not always be congruous with others. The line of conflict will define your coexistence with others.

The two fundamental sins and offenses you may commit against yourself and as a collective people would be hypocrisy and greed. The dictionary defines Hypocrisy (noun), as a pretense of virtue, a lie, false image, doing or being opposite of what one claim or preaches. Greed (noun), an excessive desire to obtain or consume beyond one's necessity. From these two basic sins derive all other sins of humanity.

Bottom line gauge. You had sinned only if you can justify the basis of any standards of morality yet do its contradiction with intent. Whether you felt remorse or guilt after which is irrelevant.

How significant is your insignificant and vice versa?

Significant (adjective), that which are critical and consequential to an outcome. Insignificant (adjective), that which are trivial and inconsequential to an outcome. Though the significance or insignificance of something may be ascertained to by its state of being absent or present in a designated outcome, the perceptive valuation of such state being so is still dependent on one who perceives. Hence, something may be significant to one yet totally insignificant to another.

Let's evaluate how in one's perceptive reality, something should be valuated as being trivial or critical. Consider the logic in deductive reasoning - if an item which was removed or added does not effect an outcome in any way, said item is insignificant to the entirety. In pragmatic maxim, an item which may be added or eliminated without affecting the outcome of a concept is not part of said concept.

Parallax: One's values and priorities in life may form the basis in determining what is or not significant in one's perceptive reality. Something may be trivial to one yet critical to another and vice versa. The rule of thumb would be to determine if something is consequential and critical in one's concept of values and priorities in life. It doesn't matter how trivial and inconsequential something may be in other's perception, if something is critical and consequential to the attainment of your will, that thing is significant to you in so far as your perceptive reality is concerned.

Parallax: How much of your life is devoted to inconsequential and trivial matters while the consequential and critical remain neglected? Are your perceptions more of an illusion? Are you living the life yourself want to be? Or a life of how you perceived others want you to be? Only you can prove to yourself that whatever objectives you have has been attained or not, if you had succeeded or failed in accomplishing that soever. From other's perspective, you may even have been the smart, wealthy, famous, influential, sought-after, good-looking, healthy, knowledgeable, philanthropic and super personality, yet would still be a failure to yourself if your primary goals and objectives in life were never attained and living a life yourself don't want.

Parallax: Does an award or citation mean something? None except as a psychological, ego or morale booster for oneself. Other's perception of you is actually insignificant in determining attainment in one's perceptive reality. If you haven't achieved what you had willed for, you have failed regardless of what you have been awarded for.

Parallax: Significance in other's perceptive reality versus one's own. Your significance or insignificance in other's perceptive reality can be ascertained to by your state of being present or absent. To determine how significant you are in other's perceptive reality, simply take a leave of absence and observe how many people looked for you? Were you missed? Has anything changed? This can be further substantiated by tallying the number of people who would surround you during your most troubled times against those who would cheer your most rewarding moments. To determine how significant you are in your own perceptive reality, tally the number of things you had accomplished against the number of things you want to.

Your perception of reality plays a vital role in addressing what is supposed to be trivial from critical. Consider the following being of significance and insignificance from variable perspective of views.

The human physical term averages to about eighty years which may be insignificant compared to the billions of years the world had and could be in existence, but in our perceptive reality we would treasure each moment of life as if time existed just for us. The world's human population ranged in the billions. Unless one is a president, king, star or tycoon, would be just another statistical data represented by some alphanumeric symbol, yet we would love and worship our names and emblems as if gods. People sacrificed lives and limbs to acquire earthly treasures, yet not realizing the world consists of mineral stone deposits in greater volume than the grains of dust we were made of. Humans lust and kill for food and sex, yet not realizing that food is a consequence of nature and sex is an urge which can be satiated by anyone of the billions we share the world with. The universe is innately huge that even as you are reading this article, another may be doing and meditating as you are and resembling you in so many ways. As we find significance in other's perceptive reality, we tend to find our own insignificance and vice versa. The key lies in how to strike a balance between our interconnected realities. Without others we would not be able to valuate the relevance of our significance and insignificance. Without self-significance, we would all be living as a consequence of others' perceptive realities.

"It is ironic that as humans, we had exhausted so much resources in a futile attempt to change and conquer a world which we perceived and claimed as reality, when the only conquerable conquest we ever should and could have conquered is oneself - our minds' perception of reality that is."

What makes a perception an illusion?

Perception (noun), a mind's interpretation of reality. Illusion (noun), an unreal or misleading appearance or image, figment of one's imagination, a misconception, a delusion. What makes a perception an illusion? When it is unreal or misleading? Unreal or misleading to whom? Apparently not to the one who perceives, for it wouldn't be an illusion had one perceived it otherwise. To the one who perceives, an illusion is just as real as any perception. Hence, one's perception may only be an illusion for another.

When we perceive of something, we form an opinion or concept. Depending on whether such opinion may be negative, neutral or positive, said concept then assimilates into our mainstream consciousness structure which then affects our individuality accordingly. A perception of something as negative will create the consequential negative mindset associated with that concept, regardless of whether such is actually negative or not to another.

Other's perception may differ with ours. It doesn't matter if we perceive something in a contrasting opinion with that of another. Provided such concept has passed the logic test based on the principles on pragmatic maxim, such may actually work to our favor if not for another. Other's opinions will only affect our perceptive reality up to the extent we allow them to. The rule of thumb would be to determine if a certain concept does work to our favor or whether such is a misconception or illusion in our perceptive reality.

Any claim to infallibility by oneself beomes the fallibility in itself

"Absolute certainty of any knowledge is impossible". There is no absolute certainty of anything (which includes this writing). Whatever your perceptive reality unfolds is a version of your interpretation of totality. The events you think unfolding, places you think visited and people you think met - exist within the framework of your mind. Your mind exudes a physical state comprising a body and brain which in turn relates to the laws of physical nature. The pleasure or pain you think experiencing is your transcended body interacting with other physical elements comprising the physical state. I'm physically writing this blog on the purported assumption that, other beings within my perceptive reality exist likewise, but I can not ascertain this to absolute certainty. My assumption of your existence is yielding to any certainty. If I would claim your existence for certainty, then I succumb to fallibility.

It is logically fallible to ascertain a claim to infallibility if the one asserting the claim is itself. For instance, consider the book of religion. A book of religion is suppose to be perceived as a book written by a god. Why? Because the book itself says so? Or some other humans said so? Or some other humans claimed the book itself or a god said so? Above is an example of a claim ascertained to by itself. This method of analogy contradicts rational logic. An absolute certainty is assumed by another based on an absolute claim made by the same entity owning to the claim. The flaw is in the logic process of analogy. The claim is senseless because it was ascertained to by itself. One cannot ascertain if the book of religion is indeed written by a god based on an assertion made by the book itself. One may instead end up ascertaining that claiming of such by the book itself makes itself likely fallible.

Had the book of religion not claimed by itself to be written by a god, one can even consider the possibility of it being written by such. Since one's concept of a god is that of being infallible, one now doubts the book was indeed written by a god, for it was too fallible for the author to have made such a fallible claim. Too fallible to some extent that one would even suspect such book to be written by a devil. Parallax: If a devil had wrote the book of religion, it may not want to acknowledge such. Godly beings would not want to read such had the devil claimed it. Instead, what a devil would have done is - claim the book was written by a god. This way, it be assured that godly beings abide by it henceforth doomed thereafter.

A book is physical hence produced by physical methodology whilst a god is an intangible and metaphysical entity. To ascertain the metaphysical qualities of a physical state, the affirmation must come from the metaphysical, not from within the framework of the same physical state. To ascertain if the book of religion was written by a god, one must first perceive the metaphysical entity of that which is a god, the act of writing made by that god and the transcended physical manifestation of such writing which is the book itself. If one can distinctively perceive the above three qualities, to some extent one may logically claim for oneself that a god wrote the book of religion. Only you can say to yourself if the book of religion was indeed written by a god or not. If you attest to or perceive this claim to or from another, you succumb to fallibility. To think and believe by faith within one's perceptive reality is rational. To preach, attest or claim one's faith to another on the assumption this be perceived likewise is what makes the basis of thought analogy irrational.

"I don't mind what you think or believe, as long as you don't shove it down my throat even if my mouth isn't open"

Fallible nature of the human mind dictates human nature

From the reciprocal (negative and positive) mind characteristics of the homo sapien, two discerning traits exude. Creativity and fallibility. Whilst other beings evolve physically, humans evolve intellectually. Whilst humans had invented computing machines which are capable of speed and infallible accuracy, the latter lacked creativity and ingenuity of an analytical and creative human mind.

What makes a human fallible?

The human mind's subjective, emotional, impulsive or urge process of thinking, also known as passion. Because passion is involuntary and supersedes logic - logical errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies naturally predominates a human mind and perceptive reality. Though passion fuels one's desire to be special, creative, ingenious, clever, inventive etc, the same produces negative mind traits when over driven, interrupts logical objective and critical thinking. Until the human being evolves in time to isolate the urge or impulsive thought process from interfering with logical, objective and critical thinking, derives conclusion, initiates action and reaction based on logic than passion, the nature of human beings would remain that of being fallible.

All physical states are "consequences of" some metaphysical "causes".

Your perceptive reality tells "you" - a physical state exists. This physical state also consists your body and brain. But what could have caused or created the physical state? Logic tells us - physical events or states take place or happen for some reasons. Though some physical events may happen by chance, but that chance, potentiality, possibility or probability may already in itself qualify as a reason for or cause of the happening. Hence physical events and states are actually physical consequences of some metaphysical cause or combined causes.

Parallax: The physical state which consists the "you" - claiming to be "in existence", actually is an outcome of combined metaphysical causes. Take for instance the causes of and how your biological parents brought about your physical existence. Let these reasons and metaphysical causes produced a physical consequence - your physical body and brain.

By identifying and segregating the metaphysical causes from physical consequences in your perceptive reality, you will be able to dissect the logic or reasons underlying such, thereby enlightening the so many possibilities and options available, which if taken or omitted, could either bring about or prevent, the likelihood of certain eventualities in or from becoming a reality.

How aesthetically appealing are you?

Aesthetics, a branch of philosophy dealing with sensory perceptive valuation of what one may classify as tasteful, artistic and beautiful. Being a perceptive valuation, it would be logical to infer that aesthetics are basically opinions of the mind. Something or someone may be aesthetically appealing to one but totally repugnant to another.

Parallax: To what extent does aesthetics affect our perceptive reality? If you find someone or something aesthetically appealing, the natural tendency you be attracted and biased toward that soever. Conversely, if others find you good looking, they will favor and prioritize you over another, granting other factors remained constant. Above had something to do with the subjective, emotional or urge process of thinking. With aesthetic appeal in favor of someone or something, the tendency to command priority cannot be understated. Though the challenges and complexities in life may require more than aesthetics to resolve, being perceived as tasteful, beautiful or handsome may give someone an upper hand barring other factors. Thus explained - why people go to great extends just to improve their physical outlooks.

On the other hand, aesthetic appeal only affects one's perceptive reality to the extent one allows. For any reason, if in your perceptive reality, you don't think looks are incidental in attracting another, maybe you prefer to capitalize on other aspects of human perception than aesthetics, you never willed to "attract" another, you don't think aesthetics is relevant to any outcome of your perceptive reality. As such, aesthetic appeal will not affect your perceptive reality. If you have seen "bad looking" people whom notwithstanding their appearance, seemed to supersede you in many aspects, this is your perceptive reality telling yourself, some non-aesthetically appealing people simply didn't let other people's perceptions affect their lives.

The following experiment can be performed to determine one's aesthetic appeal over a given time, locality, social strata, age, race, ethnicity etc. Accompany some friends to a chosen locality where you may find people you would like to "attract". Pick a noticeable position where people cannot "miss" you when they pass by. Position your friends to surround you in such varying perspective of views that they may be able to monitor and count everyone who passes you by. You may pretend you are alone. Let your friends score you 2 points for each person (male or female doesn't matter as this is an aesthetic appeal test, which is different from a sex appeal test) who looked at you and kept looking. Score you 1 point for each who looked at you then looked away. Score you 0 point for those who didn't even bother to look. Gather the scores accumulated by your friends and divide the total by the number of passersby. Multiply by 100 to get your percentage score. If you score below 50%, your aesthetic appeal may need improvement. If you score between 50-75%, you may be fairly attractive. If you score above 75%, you may be a looker. Take note, your aesthetic scores may fluctuate at different localities as different types of individuals have varying aesthetic standards of perception. However, it is noted that people with "starlet" or "model" like (as well as unusual or abstracted) aesthetic features most often scored high at any chosen locality. Have fun! Remember, your aesthetic scores only reflect how you perceived others to be perceiving you, how good looking you may perceive yourself to be, NOT how you prefer to be perceived, NEITHER who you are in totality.

Censorship

Censorship (noun), an act to hide, remove, prevent from access or prohibit - whatever in one's perceptive reality, is perceived as being obscene and offensive, including whatever one presumed might be perceived as indecent by another.

Preposterous? or Pro-stupid? The irrationality and fallibility of "censorship" can be attested by defining what the words obscene, obscenity or offensive pertain to. "Obscene" is an adjective describing whatever in one's perceptive reality, is negative, irritating and offensive to thoughts and emotions. It being an adjective, one would be logical to infer that whatever is obscene is only an opinion from one's perception. Hence, to prevent one from accessing such obscenity, it is one's own perceptive reality that must be censored, not another. The presumption of perception by another substantiated the act as being contrary to logic.

Parallax: What is obscene to one's perceptive reality may actually produced the total opposite effect, when perceived by another whom the former had presumably and erroneously concluded to have the same perception. To assume that - whatever one perceives as irritable, negative, offensive or obscene having the same effect over another - is like becoming one-track minded, illogical, fallible, assumptive and egotistical. Kind of role-playing some "God" and forcing one's opinion and subjective moral standard on another. This self-justification or self-righteousness may be more "immoral" beyond any standard of morality. But since those who disseminate media likewise lacked discretion in dissemination, self-justifying censors reacted by imposing their version of self-righteousness.

In the finale, what one is suppose to censure is one's own version of perceptive reality. One must censor or restrain oneself from perceiving - whatever may cause that which one would consider as irritating, negative or obscene to thoughts and emotions. Someone had said, opinions are similar to assholes in that everyone got one and it stinks. Not unless an opinion is specifically requested of, one must refrain from infringing an other's perception. If one thinks something may or not be obscene and offensive, keep to oneself for it may not necessarily be the same perception of another. If one infringe on the perceptive reality of another, the causative effect is that a more influential perception manipulator may likewise take charge either by imposing censorship or causing the censure of the censor. The vicious cycle then, those who disseminate media lacked propriety and discretion which caused the presumptuousness of self-righteous censors, the more censors attempt to censure, the more those who disseminate and peruse media resist. Thus, censuring the attempt to censor now becomes the perceptive reality.

Censorship by law. There may be specific "situations" where censorship may be justified by conduct of law. When the dissemination of media may wreak havoc or become a means of threat to national order, peace and security. In such cases, a governing body institutionalized by people (to protect the state from imminent danger) shall take prerogative to impose a censure of anything that may be deemed as potential threats to another. IF the law is within one's framework of perceptive reality, abiding by or challenging it will bring about certain variations in one's perceptive reality.

"If thy eyes lust, pluck them out, if thy hands steal, cut them off, if thy ears and mouth gossip, glue them shut, if thy mind think evil, pray the Lord takes swiftly".

Best and worst pick-up line?

Someone had asked, "What is the best pick-up line for approaching another?" Parallax: To find out what's the best pick-up line, you must first identify what is or are the worst pick-up line or lines. The worst pick-up line would be any statement that comes in the form of a direct inquisition which is not preceded by a relevant lead nor rhetoric. Why? because the human mind is a living, intelligent and inquisitive one, constantly seeking reason and purpose, therefore will react to any direct inquisition as interrogative and intrusive at firsthand.

Believe it or not. A direct question or inquisition, though may be the easiest pick-up line to concoct, yet is also the worst pick-up line one could ever receive or give. Huh? During childhood, we were bombarded with all kinds of direct questions from strangers ergo "what's your name", "how old are you", "where do you live" and etc. The human mind perceives these direct questions as interrogative and the subconscious urge effect would be that more of an alienation than attraction. It is not polite to approach an adult (more so a stranger) with a pick-up line as a direct inquisition, that is not preceded by a relevant lead because, the subliminal effect for the receiving party is like one being treated or interrogated as a child. We all dislike being interrogated, don't we?

The best pick-up line or lines would be - either that or those comprising a relevant lead or rhetoric before the direct question or, believe it or not, a simple "hello" or "hi" or "good day". For instance, state your name instead of or before asking for any name. State your purpose instead of or before asking for their purpose. State your origin instead of or before asking for their destination and etc. The conversation may progress with all parties stating only what they feel comfortable with. Basic courtesy - some details are definitely better left "unknown" to maintain the status quo. The phrase "I'll tell you but then I'll have to kill you" is NOT an oxymoron with respect to relationships. Don't be pushy. Make sure to give enough space for the other to back out in case. It will definitely save face for all parties concerned if none is too pushy nor overly enthusiastic. Should there be a need for any compelling direct question to be asked, state the reason of your desire in knowing before making the direct inquisition. For instance, don't ask outright "what is..who is..do you have..where do you..etc" without first saying why you want to know.

Let's conduct a firsthand perspective test. Before you bother to make any approach, have you consider if a person is worth the approaching? The basic acid test or challenge to determine if a person is worth the approaching would also be (believe it or not) a simple form of greeting such as a warm smiling "hi" or "hello" or "good day". A positive mind should have been conditioned (even as a child) to perceive the warm smiling "Hi", "Hello" or "Good day" as a positive emotional and incentive greeting, therefore will be challenged to come up with a reciprocal positive response. Well, that is at least applicable for a positively conditioned mind. With this perspective, I bet you can eventually make a decision as to further or not be involved in whatever pursuit or intent you may have.

Friend or Foe?

Who is a "friend"? Someone to spend good times with? Someone to run to if in need? Someone to sell out or in if an opportunity arises? Or, someone to help without expecting anything in return? The word "friend" is so ambiguous that oftentimes, its definition encompasses one who befits more of an "enemy".

Reality Check: The following types or breed of personalities will claim to be "friends", some a crossbreed or mixture of types.

Type#1. "Agendadized" friends - these are the people who want to be your friend for some vested interests. They will always have time for friendship provided you fit into their agenda of interests. They are very accommodating and may even be friendlier than expected. You would meet them everyday from anywhere as these are the people you deal with in your daily life. Sometimes "agendadized" friends seem to be more "real" than other types as they somehow get your life going in some aspects.

Type#2. Sunshine friends - they will always have time for you when there's something regards to merrymaking and excitement. They will even offer to shell out resources etc. But this type would prefer not to be bothered when something is to be troubled about.

Type#3. Sucker friends - they are almost similar as "agendadized" and sunshine friends except they prefer to get something for nothing, hence the term "suckers". They will "come clean" during good times (to benefit from everyone), plus they will come knocking door the day after, expecting some additional favors. You may oblige but never expect to be reciprocated when it's your call. After which, expect not to see them for awhile until such time when they may need something from you again.

Type#4. Judas friends - they will always appear to be the "true friend" type. You would think them the best of friends, trustworthy, loyal, everything thrown in except at the last moment of truth, they will sell you out for cheap sakes at a dime, a penny worth. Judas simply doesn't know which vocabulary the words "integrity" and "honor" belong. Incidentally, do watch the film "Scent of a Woman" starring Al Pacino, Cris O'Donnell and Gabrielle Anwar. Also "True Colors" starring John Cusack and James Spader.

Type#5. Sporadic or time-lapsed friends - these are the friends who would appear out of nowhere, for no reasons, then subsequently hibernate and vanishes into thin air, only to return at a later time as if time hadn't passed. Communications and attempts to make contact with them will likewise bring about sporadic responses, with some replied in detail while others seem to be lost in transit or possibly channeled to another dimension.

Type#6. Virtual Reality friends - they may function like a true friend except they only exist via some electronic media or cyberspace. They may have time for you and even influence your life more than other types. But for some reasons, they may not be present on a physical level, ergo side by side with you in the physical world. In a philosophical viewpoint, virtual friends may sometimes befit a true friend more than any other in the supposedly physical world as they oftentimes and somehow touched our lives with greater impact than any other, which also makes us wonder if reality is actually an illusion and the virtual world being reality in reverse.

Type#7. Illusive true friend - illusive indeed, as this friend is oftentimes mistaken as an enemy. The illusive true friend is one who will share time regardless of situations, without expecting anything in return. One who will stand by sunshine and rain. When the clouds finally settled, you will find a true friend still beside you, side by side throughout helpless and critical times. A true friend has more to give than receive and maybe the only one who will dare to call your prudence, as one has no intention of profiting in any way, thereby has nothing to lose if you will brand him or her as an enemy.

Fallacy on Poverty

Do you spend because you like or want to? Or do you spend because you have to? Do you spend because you have the means to? Or do you spend because it is a means to? We often say or hear the phrase "no money", as if subliminally suggesting that one may splurge if money is available.

The equivocal definition for poverty would be the state of an absence of wealth or inadequacy of resources. Parallax: Cause of poverty - the inability to efficiently manage resources and wealth, thereby resulting to inadequacies and consequential losses. Failure to define will cause a failure to diagnose. The basic cause being an inability to conserve resources against wastage. People dealt with poverty by maximizing resources and income but often neglected on minimizing unnecessary expenditures and wastage.

It is not enough that we tap alternative resources and income, we must also balance-check the way we spend, splurge and waste. The magic formula for wealth management being, maximized production / minimized expense = savings capacity. For instance, one may have an eight-figure income but spends on a ten-figure, technically is still debt-ridden and poverty-stricken. While another may be averaging a four-figure income yet provided allocation for fifty percent savings, hence more adequate. A nation's GNP (gross national production) may be large but if domestic spending, foreign debts and white elephants resulted in a ballooning gap on net earnings and BOP (balance of payments), it still is poverty-stricken. It isn't of much significance how much you made and own if you failed to manage how much you splurged or saved on what you made and own. Even the wealthiest of rich men can't possibly purchase the entire world. Can you?

Check out my article on Indebtedness

Your perceptions and attitudes toward life actually affect the internal you

Your perceptions and attitudes toward life actually affect the internal you which then set the impetus on how other people interact with you. Your mind interprets a perception either as negative, positive or neutral, then sets your attitude in accordance with that perception. But reality is not bound by your perception alone. If you perceive negatively of something, your mind will set the attitude in accordance with that perception, irrelevant of whether such thing is actually negative or not. Hence, it is the internal you, your mind that becomes negative and not necessarily your subject.

A negative mindset creates the moods and attitudes that begets further negative temperaments resulting to a vicious cycle of negative actions emanating from you and consequent negative reactions from others. People who met similar circumstances in life attained varied degrees of resolution because each had a unique way of approaching a situation. Different people set out to do the same task also turned out successful or not because each had a different perception or attitude toward the task.

It may seem unfair but true. Happiness begets more happiness, sorrow more sorrows, anger more anger, love more love, envy more envies, fear more fears, frustration more frustrations, success more successes and failure more failures. Wonder why certain people seem to will-o'-the-wisp in their miseries one after another while others prosper? The key is in their mindset. Their negatively charged mindsets narrowed their peripheral view to a "line of sight focus", consequently limiting perspectives, options, insight and foresight, created a biased than balanced outlook, thereby attracting the consequent scenarios or chained situations which, would not have been had their mindset been positive or neutral. A negatively charged mindset is driven by negative emotions hence, thoughts and actions emanating from such are more emotional than logical. On a meta-physical field, a negatively charged mindset will influence your time and space displacement. You will often find yourself at places in time to experience some misfortunes or missing out on well-deserved opportunities because you were not present when and where you were suppose to. Believe it or not, it is possible to wilfully attract misfortunes and skip out on any opportunity for yourself.

How does one adopt a positive attitude towards life? By changing one's point of view. By adopting parallaxes or viewpoints, dissecting logic and paradoxes and broadening perspectives through a phalanx of pragmatic concepts. One must discover how to manage a situation from multiple viewpoints (parallaxes) instead of a straight "line of sight". Avoid impulsive or urge process thinking as these are dependent on passions and emotions, not based on logic and are always variable as time, environment and other psychological stimuli, hence very unstable. When you manage to change your perceptions from negative to neutral or positive, your attitude will change accordingly and so will your relations with the world.

Your reality is affected by the values & priorities you set in life.

Do you often give or get a reply like,"I am busy"? People often used that to mean "I have other priorities". It is not that one has "no time", unless if one is dead. Rather it is whatever time one has, had been preordained to serve one's priorities. Question is, are your priorities well valuated?

The top priorities in life namely moral and spiritual, health and image, intelligence and wisdom, family and friends, career and wealth, fame and influence - dictate the basis of valuation for what is or isn't important in life. From such, we would rank a particular task ahead of another. Believe it or not, our values and priorities also affect our perception of what is supposedly right or wrong.

Whatever circumstances you are experiencing now is a result of the many choices you made on what is suppose to be or not. This consequently puts you in a chain of situations which would have been otherwise had you not chosen this path. Retrace your course of actions and discover exactly how and why you went a certain way, then remedy from there if any. Unless one would be physically forced, one will always have freewill to choose a path of construction or destruction in life.

Your reality is affected by the way you chose to think

Do you know that the reality you are experiencing now is a result of a combination of your mind's critical thought processes? Whatever state of mind you are experiencing now is actually an outcome of your prudent or less choice of thought processes. Our minds are capable of several types of thought processes, each of which is best applied for specific circumstances.

The analytical process of thought is best utilized for logic thinking and is critical for efficient problem solving and wise decision making. This is sometimes referred to as "common sense". The instinctive process of thought utilizes the subconscious reflex and is best applied for mind and body motor coordination. The impulsive or urge process of thought utilizes passions and emotions, combines with the analytic and instinctive thoughts to create a mindset of your perceptive reality. People who were subjected to the same circumstances still came up with varied and contradictory opinions. For most, the impulsive and urge thinking processes often overrule all other thoughts and often had the final say on decision making. We often used "I want to", "I like to", "I love to" more than "I think so".

The phrase "follow your heart" is more an oxymoron than wisdom. Because emotions, passions, impulses and urges are not based on logic and are always variable as time, environment and other psychological stimuli, thoughts or decisions emanating from such processes are very unstable. It isn't human to ignore our emotions, passions and impulses, but if we allow these to become the determinant factor for our final decision making, almost always the choice will be a regrettable one. If the majority of one's critical decisions were derived at a time when one's thought processes were inclined toward passions, emotions, impulses and urges, there's no amusing if one would live a life in a mess.

Worst case of stupidity

What is stupidity? Stupidity is the inability of a brain to be coherent with circumstances, resulting to unwarranted oversights and displacements. Several types of stupidity plagued our network of minds as lack of comprehension, insensitivity, clumsiness, forgetfulness, irrationality, retardation, gullibility and fallibility, each to their respective levels in severity. The overly simplified excuses to vindicate oneself would be "one is only human" and "nobody is perfect". As with any imperfections in life, the unforgiving level would be breached when one is no longer responsive for any improvement either due to an inability of learning or stubbornness. The worst case of stupidity would be - when one is totally unaware that he or she is guilty of such verdict.

Are you an easy prey for identity theft?

One of the most distinctive effect of mass population growth coupled with technological advancement is - the individual becomes virtually miniature and identities are accessed simply with signatures, alphanumerical data and passwords. How easy is it for someone to pretend to be you?

For anyone to pretend to be you, they need only the following information, combined with some detailed circumstances of your life's events. Viola! You have an identity clone! Your official name, date of birth, birthplace, mother's maiden name, father's name and your address - all key elements vital to cloning your identity. By any combination of above, one can actually secure a birth certificate or even apply for a job under your name.

Identity thieves may not even have to divest from you directly. Your info may have been readily available without your intention of it being so. Each minor data you shared daily represents a piece of the puzzle the thieves will work on. With the help of an unintentional assuming "accessory" fallible enough to complete the otherwise missing link, you are now vulnerable to a takeover by your clone, a swindling and character substitution or defamation. Reconsider before you ever give out any vital data. If it is necessary and why. Unless it's "official" business, you can always use a nick or alias. There are no laws enacted against the use of nicknames, provided you don't violate any other applicable laws in conjunction with using the nick. If you have to give out one vital info, hold on to another unless it becomes absolutely necessary to divulge. This will prevent identity thieves from combining these info to extrapolate a clone. Also avoid yourself becoming an "accessory by assumption". If someone tells you he or she is so and needed this or that, you can always reply that you are "mickey mouse". Remember, the most effective defense against identity theft is to not share your "official" data unless it involves "official" business.

Anti-phishing or pro-stupid?

While using the Internet, you would come across hordes of site warnings and offers to avail of their anti-phis hing programs and blah blah. What then is phis hing or "phishing"? Phis hing is the obtaining of vital information via the process of an assumption. Whereas scheming requires the manipulation of other's thoughts to obtain something, phis hing requires nothing more than the presumptuousness of another. Whereas scheming victimizes both smart and gullible, phis hing works only if the intended victims are gullible and presumptuous. There are no schemes required to phi sh. All that is necessary is to induce an assumption and wait for potentially gullible minds to bait . At its extreme, it's like saying "Hey, tell me where you keep your money so that I can help you find it when you forget". Believe it or not, a big chunk of the human race actually fell for it, that's why phis hing pays well for identity thieves.

Since the human mind continues to be fallible and assuming, entrepreneurs capitalized on this weakness by selling anti-phis hing programs. The anti-phis hing program is a software which will tell or "block" you from being phi sh. By relying on these programs, you no longer have to worry about being duped. Oh yeah, but this in turn makes your brain all the while more gullible. Pretty soon, you won't even be able to tell if something is genuine or not even if the spellings are obviously wrong. In effect, anti-phis hing programs which were designed to be anti-stupid are actually pro-stupid or pro-dummy. If you have to use these, you must be fallible if not gullible.

Do you love to wish?

What is it to wish? Being of higher intelligence, the human dominates the top of the food chain by utilizing his utmost prowess and tool - analytical and rational brain. Ironically, it is also the human who loves most to wish. Where the brain fails to resolve, passion intercedes by subjugating the unforeseeable to wishes.

And so it goes, the more wishes one makes, the less his mind resolves and the more dependent he becomes for longing. Wishing is more of an inferiority than a superiority of trait. It is directly proportional to a person's inability to rationalize and 'strategize' a solution. Wishing also denotes laziness as the brain prefers to long instead of think. This inherent weakness or temptation to wish must have been inherited even as a child and passed on to adulthood. We observed people "wishing" and assumed the habit. And what happens if a wish fails to materialize? We became helpless which in turn activates another negative passion - frustration. Wish not and be not frustrated.

Check out my article "Do you rant?"