Personal Philosophies

[And]

For me it starts with myself. If you define yourself, you have a reference point with which you may compare and locate against. The better one understands the self, the better one understands others, for example.

This meets with a bit of frustration from some people, since a lot of common folk have a tendancy to judge by what they perceive or are taught. While this information is necessary and vital to making sound decisions, it is also potentially unreliable. One's self is also unreliable, though. You may falter on a quick decision. You might do something you think you want, but haven't explored yet, and find that you don't want it after all.

It's possible that nothing may be totally understood in every aspect of existance. There's always one more detail not yet encountered. But like scientific theory, if you eliminate the impossible, the improbable becomes more reasonable. So, in myself, I consider all things carefully, especially my personal view of myself and my wants and choices. By eliminating the things I know I don't want or think, I make the next choice easier. As I lay out a definition of myself, I find my thoughts are more sure and direct.

Once a body has a reasonably good definition of what and who they are, they will have a comparison, an example, or a guide to follow through life with. To make a trivial example using food, if somebody asks you, "You want to eat some of this octopus?" and you don't know what you like, you have to make your decision on the spot without anything to go on. Your chances of making the right choice (ie, you try it and find it good) could be no more than half. However, if you have a dislike of other seafood, you have a good basis to decide wether or not you will like trying a piece of octopus. You may say no on a unilateral opposition to eating any seafood, but then again, you may experiment and try it. If you do, then in the future if someone offers you something similar, like a bite of squid, you will have an even clearer idea of wether or not you will like eating it.

You have to experiment and try new ideas and things. By testing your boundaries, you set down points of reference. I like sushi, but I'm not fond of bagels & lox. I'll eat asparagus and collard greens, but lima beans bore me. I would like to try a bowl of udon sometime. I want to learn how to cook, so that by cooking, I can try new foods I have made myself, and thereby refine my tastes. Failures are part of life in all experimentation. It's up to you (and what you've learned about yourself and your perceptions) to experiment intelligently.

So, when you know yourself (not just what you like to eat), when someone confronts you with an issue or a decision, you can decide how you stand quickly and with confidence. While I am not well-read on philosophy, religion, sociology, or psychology, I know my personality well enough that were someone to bring up a situation involving such things that I can make an educated guess on how I feel and think of the topic. And by knowing myself, I find that I can read other people rather easily. My friends occasionally get irritated at me for finishing thier sentences for them. (knee jerk habit, mostly to prove to myself that I can follow another's train of thought closely.)

I'm told that this philosphy, which I came upon on my own, is very close to, if not exactly, existentialism. Frankly, I haven't read anything about existentialism, so I wouldn't know. I am quite proud (though not arrogant) of my ability to adapt and improve on my outlook.

My choice of philosophies has led me to become agnostic, and though I don't hold a belief in any particular religion, I feel that if some deity were to give me some irrefutable sign, I would immediately follow that deity. I keep an open mind to thing supernatural, but I am also a cynical critic, and I'll debunk a dozen ghost stories, but if I find something I cannot reason out, I'll take it with a certain amount of awe and respect.

When people ask me how I stand on some issue, I'll tell them the truth without fear, even if what I say is directly against what they preach. It is my choice, my self I define with this choice, and by denying that choice, I deny my self. I cannot lie to myself, as that is the worst thing I can do in regards to myself. Jus as you can't trust someone who lies to you, how can you trust yourself if you are not truthful with yourself?

Holy crap, I'm writin' a book here... sorry. I'll stop now.

[Gomez da Killah]

there is no evil, only man

[juju]

Originally posted by And
And by knowing myself, I find that I can read other people rather easily.

I've also followed sort of the same path! Very interesting, I've never heard anyone else say this before.

I spent many, many years being very introspective and learning myself. I learned myself very well. And when I finally did come out of my shell, I learned that most of what I'd learned was applicable to other people as well. Frustratingly, most people just don't believe me when I try to tell them that people are mostly the same. Men, women, it makes no difference. Sure, we have our differences. But our similarities far, far outweight our differences. There are some emotions, situations, and thoughts that we all experience. I think the reason people never agree is that I word it all wrong. But then, I think that about most things that people disagree with me on.

[Whit]

     That's just because you know you're always right Juju-man. ;]

     All right, with me I can pinpoint a moment in my early childhood when I came to the conclusion that nobody knows a damn thing. About issue's such as good and evil, if there is a God or even basic questions about human nature, I mean. I realized everything I'd been taught was conjecture. Everyone is talking out of their ass so to speak. Now, I'm sure that most of us had such a moment in our teen years, wether we continued to believe that or not. It's kind of expected. I was six, not really emotionally prepped for such a concept.
     The result was that I continued to go to church, and even believe in God, as I had been raised to, for years. Mostly 'cause no one really gave me reason not to, but I was uncertain. I knew I was believing because I chose to, I was always trying to see what it was that I was missing, figure out why I couldn't 'feel' God the way other people said they did. A few people I knew lost faith and confided that they thought they had been deluding themselves for years. So, I gave up that line of thought. I found nothing for me in such belief, no comfort in the idea of a benevolent God, no security in the idea of omnipotent grace. As anyone that read the discussion warch and I had in sycamore's section would know, I couldn't find any reason to have faith.
     So, at six I came to an understanding of man's limitations, though I didn't understand it then, and at twelve I lost interest in the concept of a Christian God. Or any divine power. That left only the question of a less defined aspect of any form of divine justice existed. I decided that my little human brain couldn't handle all the variable's that one would have to know to make that call, no one can properly make an 'educated guess' so to speak. That only left the ability to choose to believe/not believe without sufficient information or let it go. I eventually chose the latter.
     In short I do what I believe is the best course of action based on the morals I developed over the course of my life. I don't believe any of really know anything beyond what we choose to believe, by which I mean to say that our choice of belief carries more weight than our perceptions.
     The end result of this is that I choose to do what I think is right for no other reason than because I believe it's right. I don't care if I get some karmic reward or if it's utterly futile. I want to respect the person I am so I act in the way I consider respectable. Doesn't really matter if anyone else thinks it's right. What matters is that I follow my rules.

[spinningfetus]

Balance

[And]

Balance = stagnation.
Stagnation = no change.
No change = no growth.
No growth = might as well be dead.

Now, I'm not saying balance is a useless concept. There are individual aspects of eveything with which one must achieve balance, but using Balance as a whole philosopy, I feel, leads to an eventual status quo if one is successful, but then too much balance can leave you unprepared for change. If one is not successful at achieving balance, then you have a person trying hard to stabilize in the face of change, often at an extremely costly amount of effort.

Balance should be *part* of everybody's philisophy, I think, but it should also be tempered and adjusted with adaptability and growth.

[headsplice]

Balance = stagnation.
Stagnation = no change.
No change = no growth.
No growth = might as well be dead

When was the last time you tried to balance something as complicated as life?
A one word answer to a question like this is either really, really wise, or really, really trite.

[And]

Word.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by And
I feel, leads to an eventual status quo if one is successful, but then too much balance can leave you unprepared for change. If one is not successful at achieving balance, then you have a person trying hard to stabilize in the face of change, often at an extremely costly amount of effort.

Balance should be *part* of everybody's philisophy, I think, but it should also be tempered and adjusted with adaptability and growth.

Obviously we have different ideas about what the word balance means. I believe that it is mistaken to consider balance as a state of stasis. When's the last time you saw someone walk a tightrope without moving? It is only through perfect balance that the world can be seen for what it really is. Extremes don't work in science and they don't work in life. It means being able to experience emotions to thier full extent without letting them overwhelm you. Using reason and sense to judge the world without becoming paralysed with overanalysis. It means being able to stay afloat in the swirling chaos and not spilling your drink. I could go on but I have a bed screaming my name...

[Elspode]

In Wicca, we strive for balance, the end result of what we usually refer to as "grounding and centering". There is no stasis involved.

Remaining in balance is arguably much more difficult than any other state of being. Being in balance does not imply that you aren't moving in a direction, either...riding a bicycle will demonstrate the combination quite nicely.

Keeping balance is strenuous exercise, both physically and philosophically. You are always working with and against the forces of life which you encounter every day, expending effort, re-evaluating your positions and feelings on a constant, even subliminal basis.

If you do all of this, and manage to attain some semblance of balance in your life, you are rewarded with more peace of mind and less stress.

It is a bitch to accomplish for any reasonable length of time, though. What is important is that you never stop trying.

[And]

Balance is a stasis of sorts, however, as it implies an equality of amounts. I agree that a perfect balance is difficult to achieve, but what I mean by my above explaination is that balance can provide the stability required for numerous actions and perceptions, but balance is a part, a starting point, or a controlling factor, and not a total achievement. Balance is required for a person to stand up, but it is tipping that balance forward that one begins to walk forward. It is motion (read: change) that allows us to continually "fall" forward as we walk, and balance keeps us from falling on our faces. Balance alone is nice, but not enough.

Balance allows you a point of reference. When you sense that things are the same, then you know a definite point from which you can judge a differentiation as things change or the balance is altered. You can say, "This is more than it was when they were the same, and this is less." be that more or less a distance, a volume, a speed, an emotion, etc.

By finding one's balance, you gain control, as at that point, you can then make a decision as to what amount you want to vary that balance. You can introduce a defined amount of "chaos" into the order, and thereby upset the balance at your will, either to observe, or to achieve a desired condition.

Balance. It's what's for dinner.

[Whit]

You can introduce a defined amount of "chaos" into the order, and thereby upset the balance at your will, either to observe, or to achieve a desired condition.

     Yeah, I know that impulse. The only problem is that the nature of chaos is that it's not really controlable. One of the worst ideas and best examples of doing this is dating a psycho. It seems reasonable at the time. Your life is settled, your bills are under control. You have no real problems. Then you hear that bastard voice in the back of your head, "Hey, I bey she will stir things up a little. Make life more interesting."
     Bastard voice. Still, can't say it's wrong exactly ...

[xoxoxoBruce]

If you screw me once......it's your fault.
If you screw me twice......it's Street Sweeper time, baby.

[Whit]

If you screw me once......

     Perhaps you are unaware of the upside of dating insane women?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Date them? I've married them. I stand by my post>