Ideas in the Night

Very shortly: What kind of person is a strong person?

It seems that I have forgotten lots of things recently. Luckily I haven’t forgotten anything in oven while making food… Even in this short blog post I had to use dictionary a lot.. 🙂

Recently I started to think, that have I forgotten what kind of person is a strong person. Sometimes in my experience nowadays we live somehow in a heartless weak world. Is it then easy to be strong here? No.

One good characteristic of a strong person is balance in a wide sense. For instance, one characteristic of strength is restrain, what represents balanced person capable of sensible consideration and judgement. A strong person doesn’t easily get upset or angry; one should remember, that hate blinds and makes eventually weak. The ”power” of hatred is only a delusion.

To grow up a strong person is hard and to keep oneself strong is hard; in practice one must have courage to be weak and face the truth: One must face oneself, own weaknesses and win them in order to grow a strong person.

One problem may be blindness to own weaknesses; one may believe that something that in fact represents weakness, represents strength.

If one doesn’t have courage to face oneself — the whole truth about oneself — one doesn’t really have courage to face anyone else either in a true way; one doesn’t really see other people. This may cause one to harden oneself and become ”tough”, what in practice means cowardice. At least eventually.

How could love in this case be strong, which represents real strength. True strength.

We all have inner demons called hate and fear among others, that we must conquer. Perhaps someday we will see a world without wars, when everyone has defeated their own inner demons, particularly fears and hatred.

ID-10096534

Image courtesy of zole4 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In big heart there is room enough to pain too, so that pain or fears can’t suffocate the starting sparks of love. Eventually love will melt all the pain when it gets its chance. Perhaps I’m only dreaming… Though, I hope not.

Link:

Advertisements

Gift to my girlfriend: Lotus flower crystal candle holder

I bought a present to my girlfriend recently: Lotus flower crystal candle holder. Along with this gift I wrote a short poetic story about the Lotus flower and us.

We share here shortly some short thoughts in a little different words since the original document I wrote is personal.

I wanted to wish to my girlfriend good health. One of the meanings of the Lotus Flower is well being.

”May our shared tea moments at the Lotus flower vibrate our love to our home; and will the home vibrate the energy of our love back to us even stronger.”

Love and its energy is a strong power to maintain and bring good health.

One profound mystic meaning of the Lotus flower is, that it can provide a sense of cosmic connection and energy within oneness of all being.

In the philosophy of sacred geometry is written lots of mystic philosophy of the Lotus flower.

Below is a video of the Lotus flower:

Link:

 

 

Does set Z have a middle point?

Set Z consists of all negative and positive integers and zero:

Z = {…, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …}.

Human’s intuition easily make to think that zero (0) is the middle point of set Z. But is it?

In every finite subset of set of Z {-p, -p + 1, –p + 2, …, 0, …, p – 2 , p – 1, p} (p > 3) zero is the middle point on grounds of symmetry:

|(-p) – 0| = |p – 0| = p

(With difference in absolute values, one gets the distance between points.)

But what about the whole set Z? It is an infinite set without beginning or end. Can it have a middle point?

I’ll take a role of a creator. I say: I create the set Z from zero to negative and positive infinity. Someone says: Then zero is the middle point. I answer: No, I ”started” the creation from zero, but after creation of my infinite work, my work doesn’t have a start or an end. Therefore it does not have a middle point.

ID-100381318

Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Back to the role of a blogger: Because the set Z doesn’t have a start or an end, it doesn’t have a middle point. One can’t measure the distance from “infinity to finite number zero”, at least we humans can’t. The best we can say is that the distance in this case is infinite, but that’s all.

One could also ask: Does set N have a middle point? (N consists of all positive integers and is an infinite set) In this case human’s intuition doesn’t make it to think that set N would have a middle point.

6 Posts from Google+ Philosophy Collection Translated Into English

No-one must accuse without truth.

* * *

Solution without meaningful goal may be an apex of stupidity.

* * *

If an absolute truth does not exist, only truths, every truth may be a lie; and every lie may be a truth. Without absolute truth there exists ”balance of falsehood”; lie and truth are equal. Everyone is right and wrong; and every fight is useless, because everyone are equally right or wrong with each other; in this madness it would be insane to claim that one is more right (in something) that some other; that would be inequality in ”balance of falsehood”, injustice.

But let us assume, that absolute truth does exists (we don’t editorialize in the number of absolute truths). Now every truth that isn’t in meaningful way related to an absolute truth is sometime a lie; and every truth that is in a meaningful way related to an absolute truth, will shine in time with an absolute truth.

The truths kinds of previous can be real building blocks of philosophers, if the goal is to get out of the tin of glass without breaking the glass. With tin of glass I refer to ”balance of falsehood”.

Veden kivi kädessäni

* * *

(This is just my humor.) In apparent democracy where one is not allowed to think freely – not to even have own opinions – there exist three kinds of opinions:

  1. Wrong opinions

  2. Own opinions

  3. Right opinions

With more precise analysis we can get following result of kinds of opinions

  1. Wrong opinions

  2. Own opinions

  3. ”Right” opinions

  4. Right opinions

And maybe we can add the most relevant:

  1. The official opinions (=”the facts” on the other hand ”the truth”)

* * *

What is implication from logically false statement? In genuinely meaningful set of concepts always logically false.

But if the set of concepts isn’t genuinely semantically meaningful, particularly if the set of concepts is internally contradictory, it may seem, that the logical implication from false is sometimes logically true (or vice versa)!

Internally contradictory set of concepts is apparently logical world of concepts, what make it possible the rise of paradoxes.

* * *

With mathematical proofs we have the familiar concepts, sufficient and necessary condition. For example, a condition can be necessary to proof a theorem, but it is not sufficient.

Since mathematics as such has nothing to do with life (it’s only ideas in one mind), let us apply a little these concepts to stress managing.

If someone has strong need for example hit someone, he/she can consider, that it is necessary. If it is (in someone’s opinion), but it isn’t sufficient, the whole decision plan must be re-thought: The whole plan to solve the problem must be something else.

The rules of mathematics are “solid” (in their context), but humans’ life is dynamic, therefore one can’t always and in everything behave in the same way. For example, one can’t always follow one’s every emotion.

When I was too alone…

This post is part of what I’ve written in a cafeteria when I was too alone and lonely in 2007…

Is my loneliness my “friend”? Why it doesn’t want to let go of me? Would it be alone then? Does loneliness need someone in order it wouldn’t be alone? Would loneliness die, if I wouldn’t be alone? Is loneliness my only friend who wants, that our “friendship” doesn’t cease to be?

Is loneliness like evil spirit that tries to encapsulate an individual inside itself? Furthermore, is it so, that loneliness can’t take being alone itself; and because of that, it forces someone to be its “friend” and therefore lonely people does exist? Is loneliness afraid of loneliness itself? If so, does it try to put its own fears to its victim?

If the victim is not afraid of loneliness, will loneliness die as useless? Does loneliness need the fear of loneliness? What if that fear becomes useless?

Is being lonely substantially different thing that being afraid that one is lonely? Yes.

Does loneliness try to scare people? From what does loneliness find its purpose to live? From the loneliness of other people? What can take away the purpose of loneliness? Is it enough that one is not afraid of loneliness? Will loneliness begin to be afraid of loneliness itself then?

Image courtesy of PaulR at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Will the heart of the loneliness be broken, if no-one doesn’t want to be alone and lonely? Is loneliness then itself alone and lonely? Is loneliness then afraid of itself? If so, loneliness can’t eventually exist; is that like loneliness had found itself?

If so, it is afraid that it will be left alone for good and that it is deserted, even though hardly no-one ever wanted or liked it.

Its own fear teaches to it then, that it is evil. Friendship will burn it into non-existent.

About the Meaning of Life

When I first posted to this blog my first short thoughts about the meaning of the life, I had completely forgotten, that in 1994 I had first read Viktor E. Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning, original name Ein Psycholge erlebt das Konzentrationslager (some kind of direct translation into English could be ”A Psychologist experiences a concentration camp”. The Finnish translation to the book is Ihmisyyden rajalla. Direct translation to this in English is On the border of humanity.

Why this book is so important to me is, that my so called high school (lukio) years were pure hell to me… My math teacher was sure that I would fail the 6 hours examination on math and I can’t blame him: Because of the circumstances while I was at high school, I didn’t at first pass some of the math courses. At lukio in Finland the grades are from 4 to 10 in all the courses. I got some 4s in math and had to try again to get at least 5 to pass the course. It was a miracle that the average of my math grades eventually was even 6 that is really weak grade.

From the final 6 hours exam that is the same (though in math there is more advanced line compared to the other to choose from) for every  high school students in Finland, I got eventually cum laude approbatur as grade. At the time the grades for this exam were improbatur (failed), approbatur, lubenter approbatur, cum laude approbatur, magna cumlaude approbatur and laudatur. Nowadays there is eximia magna cum laude approbatur between magna and laudatur.

But I didn’t do the final exam that consists of many days of 6 hours exams with the other students. With my school’s principal I had agreed that I will do the whole exam apart from the other students. This was how in my high school years I did eventually also all the courses after the first year.

ID-100367928

Image courtesy of surasakiStock at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

After I had read many Viktor E. Frankl’s books, it was after two years when I took the one chance to try to raise my math grades: I got 9 for the 11 math courses, laudatur for the final exam. I was on the ”advanced mathematics” courses at high school. Though compared to university math those high school courses are child play.

I compared often my high school years to Frankl’s experiences. Of course his experiences were whole lot more extreme: He couldn’t be sure if he sees the next morning – or hour… Though, later on my life seeing the next morning hasn’t been very certain…

To emphasize Frankl’s books importance, they made me understand how to live. One point is: No matter how terrible the circumstances in one’s life are, one should strive to see some meaning to live and get even further in life. The worst case that Frankl describes for a human is, that one has only one’s existence. This is where one should try to find meaning to one’s existence, after that one can begin to find meanings to one’s life.

I really should get back to the ideas of meaning of life. As Frankl’s says, he understood, that the highest goal in one’s life is love. But as to meaning of life, Frankl has written that life (some other person) should ask that from oneself; it’s hard to really find the meaning of life by oneself. Even if one can as a word or some kind of concept see love as the primary meaning of life, depending on the circumstances it may be hard to find the right path directly.

One thing that I’ve said to myself sometimes is: Life must be experienced, it’s not be watched on the TV. Only by living, one can learn how to live and get real experiences from which to learn.

Link: Wikipedia: Viktor E. Frankl

How may philosophy end up being considered as waffling?

Let’s imagine we have a philosopher, who has an audience, that gladly listens to his thoughts. Let’s then imagine an other audience (A2), who begins to consider our philosopher’s thoughts as waffling.

The philosopher asks from A2, what is the smallest contention between waffling and philosophizing he can make. After he has agreed about this question with A2, he begins to philosophize from this point with a little (agreed) gap to both directions from the agreed point where he could still be considered a philosopher.

After some time A2 again considers our philosopher a waffler not a philosopher. Our philosopher continues to reduce his thoughts with an agreement with A2 so that A2 at first considers him a philosopher again, but always after a while considers the philosopher a waffler.

Eventually A2 considers the philosopher only a waffler not a philosopher at all. All he says is only some kind of nonsense.

Now the audience that gladly listened our philosopher at very beginning and continued to consider him as a philosopher starts to invent new kind of philosophy thinking the difference between philosophy and waffling, particularly the psychology about what changes other audience’s view to consider something waffle rather than philosophy.

Perhaps even new school of thought arises with whole new theories. Lots of work for many future generations. Now, how would A2 react to this new school of thoughts? Would they consider all those people as wafflers?

ID-100322421

Image courtesy of atibodyphoto at FreeDigitalPhotos.net


Since this is some kind of humor of mine and just short little story, below is the original Finnish version of it. As some people probably notice, in my translation some spirit of the original story has been lost.

Olkoon meillä kuvitteellinen filosofi jolla on kuulijakunta, joka mielellään kuuntelee hänen ajatuksiaan. Olkoon meillä sitten toinen kuulijakunta (K2), joka alkaa pitämään osaa filosofimme puhetta jaaritteluna eikä filosofiana. Filosofi kysyy selvittää K2:lta mikä on pienin siirtymä, minkä hän voi tehdä puhumisessaan siten, että puhe ei ole enää jaarittelua vaan filosofiaa.

Tästä päästään yhteisymmärrykseen. Filosofimme jatkaa pienellä pelivaralla tällä uudella rajalla filosofointia. Lopulta K2 toteaa jälleen, että ei tuo ole filosofiaa vaan jaarittelua. Jälleen haetaan yhteisymmärryksessä pienin liikkumavara jaarittelun ja filosofian välillä ja filosofointi voi jatkua. Lopulta jälleen K2 pitää filosofointia jaaritteluna.

Filosofimme jatkaa pienimmän rajan hakemista tahon K2 kanssa jaarittelun ja filosofoinnin välillä. Lopulta K2 pitää kaikkea filosofimme filosofiaa jaaritteluna. Kuitenkin nyt on muu kuulijakunta, joka on alusta asti pitänyt filosofimme puhetta filosofiana koko ajan samalla, kun K2 pitää kaikkea filosofimme filosofiaa jaaritteluna.

Nyt filosofimme puhetta koko ajan filosofiana pitänyt kuulijakunta keksii kokonaan uutta filosofiaa yhdessä filosofimme kanssa pohtien jaarittelun ja filosofian eroa, erityisesti psykologiaa siitä, miksi filosofia voi joidenkin kuulijoiden mielestä menettää merkityksen seurauksella, että alunperin kiinnostunut kuulijakunta keksii uusia filosofisia ajatuksia usean sukupolven ajan filosofiasta, jota K2 ei enää pitänyt lainkaan filosofiana vaan jaaritteluana.

Ehkä syntyy jopa kokoaan uusi filosofinen koulukunta ja teoria. Nyt, miten kuulijakunta jonka mielestä kaikki filosofimme filosofia olikin jaarittelua suhtautuisi mahdollisesti syntyneeseen uuteen teoriaan?