On Religion, Faith, Atheism, and Politics.

  This topic was proposed to me by my good buddy, Samuel. This blog post is on my opinions and views of religion on a world scale. I will cover various faiths that I particularly have a problem with, so I may offend people. If I do, I sincerely apologize. I wish to say that I do not particularly endorse any sort of belief beyond their philosophical relevance and various mythological interpretations: I do not endorse any religious belief system literally, nor incorporate their deities into my belief system. That being said, if I were to put a standard category, albeit the category would be mostly false, but close enough to get people to understand the general mindset I have about religion, most would consider me a spiritualist.

   My opinion on religion is a pretty negative one. Although I value religion for their rich literary qualities, as well as their vivid imagery and rich philosophy, I do consider most religions, when they talk about their deity, Fiction. Granted my definition of Fiction is different from most. While yes, fiction could be equated to make-believe, fiction can be more real, in a sense, than non-fiction. While non-fiction provides detailed accounts of what happens in the "real world", fiction incorporates those ideas and allows the idea room to breathe. Fiction can be the ultimate expression of one's self and their ideals, emotions, ethics, and philosophies, as well as providing thought-experiments for them. To me, instead of being make-believe, it's more of "what if?". This allegorical interpretation of fiction is the way, I think, religions should be interpreted, which I suppose is somewhat akin to the way most people view mythology.

  That being said, I dislike religious people who take the myths entirely literally and then argue among themselves without getting anywhere. I see this manifest mostly (this is where I will offend people) in Abrahamic Religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and possibly most infamous of them all ( and probably my most scorned religion) Christianity and all of it's branches. These are middle eastern and western religions essentially, and they are the most prevalent in American society. Thus, I've had the most exposure to them, and in all honesty, I view them all to be based on flawed principles of morality, and created primarily as a system of control. While I never attack people of sincere faith in their religion, as it's there business, it becomes a problem when shoved down everyone's throats. This upsets me greatly, as not only is it morally flawed, but logically as well. I expect much scrutiny for this paragraphs and if I receive such, my point would be proven. These religions, on a political scale, take a far right position (though not always), and if taken seriously as a political basis ( which it has), would establish totalitarian fascism. This is arguable at the fact that the Christians would say that their principles are the same ones that founded the constitution of the United States of America, which is proclaimed "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave". I tastefully disagree, as in my opinion Democracy is like a fascist mob rule. There is a standard norm and to deviate from our norm, although it's supposed to be allowed, isn't likely followed through or respected by the Majority. Take Atheism for example. Atheism once upon a time was an irrelevant minority in the U.S. until recently, when the "Intellectuals" have made their debut and atheism began to rise, now standing at 12% roughly of the American population, if I'm not mistaken. That's not bad, but when the 88% of Christian or religious apologist notice this, they are on the hunt as quickly as a hungry lion spotting a wilder beast. 

  This scrutiny for anything that opposes normality begins to shape the foundations of uniformity, which the essential principle in fascist philosophy. Uniformity is founded on normality which is the epitome of mediocrity. This severely undermines the individual, if the Majority is against him. This can be seen upon observing the attitudes against another, more controversial minority: the Homosexual community. Putting aside my utter disgust for the intolerance towards these fine people, the homosexuals suffer a very heavy burden, as they are essentially the ass of everyone's jokes. They receive far more scrutiny for their "appetites" rather than who they are as a person. A person could be a wonderful actor or perhaps someone noteworthy (Which only exists as a product of the establishment of Normality), being homosexual can either devastate or assist their carrier. Homosexual teens have one of the highest suicide rates in the country simply because normality doesn't allow them to be who they are. This is rather disturbing to me, as this is the very democracy that our soldiers died for. What happened to the principle of "All men are created equal"? Isn't that one of God's supposed inalienable rights he endowed Man? If God's rights are the only ones that no man are able to take away, then why is it that this very country becomes so intolerant of so many things Man does? This religious principle, particularly Abrahamic, is appalling to me. This is one of the many reasons I equate democracy (in practice, not in theory) as very close to Fascism. 

  Fascism, almost always, has a religious element to it, because what better way to unite people than in faith? When a religion gets glorified to sainthood by the state, it's easier to follow what people want rather than actually sit there, contemplate, and read about various practices. I find this silly, and one of the many flaws of Abrahamic Faiths. 

  Christianity however, won't be my only target. Atheism too itself, can be very dangerous. While it's generally safer than religion, it becomes a religion when science is worshiped. The atheist would argue that they are truth lovers, and that truth is validated through rigorous scientific research and empirical (sometimes logical) evidence is provided. That's all fine and dandy, but it was science, not religion, that gives us our weapons. It's what gives us the atom bomb and the hydrogen bombs, as well as various weaponry which we use to kill ourselves with. Atheism seems to carry the air of infallibility by hiding behind and exploiting the inherent flaws of religion, but atheism is by no means safer or better than religion. It's simply it's antithesis. Everything must have an opposite. I'm not saying that atheists (or Christians, in some cases, for that matter) are immoral, or bad. But when you delve to much into one thing, and over indulge, the only "truth" that is apparent, is the only either party endorses. Now, Atheists don't always worship science, but science can be very detrimental as well to the fabric of the human condition. It undermines the human life and renders meaningful, sometimes immaterial things, as nothing more than material accidents and have no validation or meaning beyond the fact that "they (feel or are) nice." Not everything has to be grounded in science to be understood, and there doesn't always have to be empirical evidence for something to be "real". Reason why is because no one can validate whether matter is "real". There are numerous accounts of evidence that it exists, but ultimately, our experience to this evidence doesn't make it "Real". It makes it "real to our heads" but it doesn't validate an external reality, which, if even existent, doesn't mean that we are directly experiencing the Real, and any scientific attempt we make will validate that. 

    I have a softer spot in my heart for Eastern Religions. I admire the Upanishads and respect it as arguably the first written philosophical texts in human history which is the foundation for Hinduism. I also enjoy the moral ethics of Buddhism and Confucius. However, I, like the others, do not believe that any of these religions are "right". To me, I believe a combination of science and all the religions are required to obtain the ultimate Truth. I believe every Religion is true about certain things, and when one learns to interpret them, one begins to crack the code of life. Science cannot do it alone, neither can religion. There must a merger of the two, which I find in Taoism. I admit I am biased towards Taoism, but the reason being is because, although there are branches which worship deities, Taoism from the Tao Te Ching and Hua Hu Ching is philosophical interpretation of the world and the universe, which are beautifully written. I endorse these philosophies heavily.

Essentially the premise of Taoism isn't so much as, for example, "THOU SHALT NOT TRIP!" but more like "If you trip, you're more than likely going to fall, so you might want to watch where you're stepping." Terrible examples but I do heavily endorse Taoism as a philosophy, not as a religion.

  All in all, I believe that Religion is good, but Religious fanatics are dangerous. Everything in excess creates negativity and bigotry, and that the key to truly finding the answers, is in a place between Religious/Spiritual Beliefs, and Science. Moderation is the key to all things!

              If you want to read them here are links I found of the Tao Te Ching and Hua Hu Ching

Hua Hu Ching: http://www.cheraglibrary.org/taoist/hua-hu-ching.htm 

Tao Te Ching:  http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

Only love is Real; Fiction, Reality, and Everything in between Pt.2

This scientific and materialistic view of emotions and love are to superficial to categorize it properly. It's very much like pointing to the moon; it stares at the finger, but misses all the wonder beyond it. Love is simply to powerful an expression to be categorized in something as brutish as the material world. This is partly due to my metaphysical ideology.

Metaphysics is the study of 'what is' in philosophy. I'm going to digress heavily so I can provide a foundation for the following beliefs predicated on this topic. Look around you. Touch something. Look at something. Taste something. Listen to something. This is what most people would call reality. It's our sensual experiences that propose the answer to the question: What is real? But is it really real? What if one has a dream? A dream that was "realistic"? A dream in which you did not initially know you were dreaming? What if you were unable to wake up? What would be the difference between the dream world and our world? Now this may seem like something from the Matrix films, which yes, I do enjoy very deeply, but in fact the question is MUCH older than the films predating them about 3000 years. 

We can suspect that our senses are lying to us. After all we have no way of validating whether or not they are or are not by normal scientific means. Now if we are dreaming, then essentially this unreal life is meaningless. It holds know "real" value whats or ever. Unfortunately we do not know what is real. We do not know why we're here or where we came from or why we do the things we do. But that's what the irony of love invites: Certainty. When you're head over heals for someone you know you're infatuated. Somehow everything becomes meaningful, and you may not know much about the ontology of the Universe, but you appreciate it's magnificence anyhow. This is the power of love. Sometimes what's real doesn't even matter anymore. Physical attachment doesn't always predicate love. 

Long distance relationships, in this society are condemned due to loss of physical contact. It becomes difficult and eventually the relationship becomes stale and worthless. It's very very difficult to do. I admittedly am in a long distance relationship in the eyes of the Layman. Everlin lives in Chicago, I live in Florida. We are states away and I will admit that, although we fight, and we have our problems, that we are in love. I love her so much and as far as contemporary society was concerned, I never met her. Therefore, it's almost inconceivable that I could even state that I love her. It's so frowned upon that in all honesty, I find it quite funny. The question "how" begs for an answer. It's as if they must know "how" I can I love someone I never physically touched. The answer is simple. The emotions transition beyond the physical "reality", if you will, that people live in now a days. Do I require her to be there? No. I don't. Would it be nice to meet her physically? Well certainly, but that doesn't mean that meeting is necessary to validate our love for each other. Reason being is because if I can love her without seeing her physically in front of me, then why do I require her to BE physically in front of me to love her? I do not. Love transcends physical reality. Love is a truth beyond the physical world. It exists within the heart. I do not need to feel her with this body... I already feel her with my heart. 

Now, that kind of love, that kind of devotion, is frightening. Many people rarely experience that kind of love. Sometimes two people will fall in love, stay together for a few years, then just as easily fall out of love as if it never happened. Maybe that heartbreak is painful, perhaps even unbearable but at the end of the day they get through it and move on as if it never happened, supposedly wiser than before. That kind of love seems real because it involves pain and suffering, which has always been the validation of reality in the human mind. We pinch ourselves to know we're not dreaming. Therefore, we believe it is possible to love someone then fall out of love with them. I disagree. I don't believe you can truly fall in love with someone then just completely fall out of love as easily or as difficult as when you fell in love. Perhaps you believe you love someone due to a sexual attracting, or maybe due to an extreme emotional attachment to that person. But truly being in love is a permanent deal. It's eternal. It does not fade, nor does it die. You can repress it deep into the confines of one's very essence, but you can never completely destroy it; you can only hide from it. 

How do I know this? Simple, love is like death. When you're in love with someone, truly and utterly in love with someone, you die. Not your physical body, of course since that would be rather odd, but a more sentimental and more horrific death. You witness the death of your self. The affirmation of love is death of the individuals whom are in love. It is death of The Self. However, when that Self dies, it is reborn. It is resurrected and bettered. It is different. You feel your values you change. Everything suddenly becomes rich with meaning and everything becomes beautiful. Suddenly everything is somehow different because you are different. You are in love. Again what is love? Love is a word. 

                            "Love is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies.."-Rama Kandra;                      

                                                                     The Matrix Revolutions.

The birth of that connection is love. Love is a word that signifies the onset and the presence of that connection. It's not an ordinary connection however. It's more profound and significant. It becomes addictive and can even be powerful enough to drive a man insane. It's powerful enough to make a man move mountains and powerful enough to shape the very universe. It's powerful enough to override the chemical precursors evolution has provided mankind for Self preservation. It's a connection that runs so deep it bypasses the physical self and goes deep into the very essence of the individual, his very soul itself. It's powerful enough to kill the individual and bring him back. It's powerful enough to dwarf death and distance. It's when you're a horrid person, perhaps you committed the worst moral crimes ever or perhaps you did something in your past and it's okay. The person you love may be in tremendous pain, and they may weep over it, but it's okay because they still love you. That connection still remains. Not even death can do it apart. 

When I critique physical connection or activity validating love, I do strictly mean physical contact. Of course some form of communication must be there or the person is lonely because of the incomplete feeling that follows not being in the presence in any way, shape, or form. There of course must be some form of contact, but when love is powerful enough, it transcends death and brings one peace. Because death is not the absence of contact, in fact death is the essence of pure contact. It's when the person's essence is all around you and you can feel them there, not with your body of course, but with your heart. It's painful, and it's saddening, but it's also enlightening, and ultimately serene. The idea of death as being serene is so alien but love is what makes death familiar. Love is like being dead. Perhaps you long to join them in death, but simply because they no longer walk besides you physically doesn't mean they're no longer there. Love is just that powerful. 

It summons the greatest will power because true love is beyond fear and it's beyond desire. It's in a place of pure will power. There is no inherit reason to love someone truly and unconditionally. There is no reason other than willing it. There is no desire, no fear, they love each other simply because they just do. No reason or intrinsic value beyond that. I personally believe that, that essence of pure will, is ultimate freedom, and that's why I equate love with freedom. How do you know you're really in love? Well, how close do the bombs need to hit home before you duck for cover? How close to the skin do you have to shave before you risk a cut? How much are you willing to give up to hold on to that connection? Are you willing to give up your dreams? How bout your life? How bout your values, your religion, or even your deepest secrets? How bout your very soul and existence? How about your job? Your money? Your freedom? Your morality? How about absolutely everything? Are you willing to give all that up for a single person or a selective group of people simply because you feel a profound connection that isn't even validated based entirely on the fact that they're not even physically there? For me, the answer is "Yes, I would gladly." 

That is the essence of freedom and ultimately the fundamental nature of love. Freedom isn't a liberty to simply say what you want too. Freedom is being who you are irrespective of anything. Freedom is also the right to give that up entirely. Freedom is the freedom to fail and loose everything. Freedom is faith, not in the religious sense, but faith that the goal you're fighting for will be attained. "Freedom is not so much like dipping your hand in a cookie jar whenever you want; it's more like being thrown out of the house at the age of 8."- Stephen Faller in his book Beyond the Matrix: Revolutions and Revelations. That's what freedom is; it's terrifying but it's liberating. That is exactly what love is like. It's when you don't need a reason to do something. Why do I stay in a relationship with her? Why would I risk everything for her when I "don't even know her"? Would you really give up everything for her? My reply would be "Yes". Why?

                                                           Because I choose too. 

Only love is Real; Fiction, Reality, and Everything in between Pt.1

This blog post is an unbelievably personal one. This topic was proposed to me by my lover, Everlin. She has been the joy of my life and asked me to do a topic of the nature of love. This topic is very, very, very personal to me.

Love has been the epitome of existence, the fabric that not only gives life but gives meaning to it. Love is the gate way to virtues that very few in humanity ever exhibit or endorse. Some of these virtues are selflessness, humility, compassion, and perhaps best of all, benevolence. These principles have influenced many moral foundations in both Eastern and Western religions which is quite interesting, given that a majority of the world's population is religious, namely Christian which supposedly advocate this behavior, yet none of them seem to portray it. While I do particularly love schools of thought from the East such as Taoism, which I find absolutely and stunningly beautiful, I am at odds with this portrayal of love. Love seems to be the antithesis to civilization in the eyes of humanity because it is the greatest risk and the greatest series of choices we will ever have to make. Love is the purest form as well as the least exclusive form, of a value which I happen to endorse heavily: Freedom.

Love is freedom, and like freedom, it offers no guarantees. There is no certainty things will work out just the way you want them too. But if by some miracle it does, it'll be purely of your own doing, free from any metaphysical notion you'd ever think of. It's the purest essence and expression of existence. It is the essence of all living things, and it's what makes, not just humans, but life itself great. But exactly what is love? The dynamics of how love works or even what it is has puzzled neuro-biologists, scientists, metaphysics academics since the first meditations on human existence to modern times.

Empiricists say love is a series of chemicals that the brain releases that is attributed to pro-creation. Some of them say that it's a brain state or mental condition in which the brain's chemistry is altered to facilitate a profound attachment to one's self and/or another person. This position is palatable to me. It is definitely an interesting materialist view. But it's too narrow an explanation for something as ethereal and abstract  as love. While I do agree wholly with this view, I view there's another, idealistic aspect of it. I propose that, while our brains do undergo changes in chemistry when different emotions of different intensities are present, that the brain state mirrors something more fundamental in the individual's consciousness. I believe love originates from the spirit or the deepest level of consciousness in the individual, which is mirrored physically by the body.

While the most popular argument against mind/body dualism is that one cannot prove exactly what is a soul, where it comes from, or how it interacts with a physical body. These are great questions and dilemma to mind/body dualists like myself. However, simply because we cannot explain the mechanics of how something works, doesn't make it nonexistent. It simply means we lack the means to validate it's existence beyond a measure of healthy speculation. The reason why I believe in a truer, deeper Self that exists beyond the intellect, is because of just how powerful love can be.

Attatchment does provide us with the urge to procreate from time to time, and it may even be a good survival tool which is, according to Darwinism, the sole condition for any adaptation to be present in an organism. Mammals evolved with a higher brain function than our reptilian counterparts because we have the ability to learn. We are further evolved mentally and emotionally and are therefore capable of love. But if survival is the only reason why developed these brains, then there really is no purpose for many of the emotions on a utilitarian scale. Beyond the sheer usefulness of particular emotions, there's no need to have them and eventually, once obsolete there will be no further purpose for their function. So what is the use of love? How does one use love? What's the use of friendship and civility? What's the use for creativity and art? What's the use for serenity and feelings of joy and peace? Essentially the only emotion that proves useful is fear because it prepares our bodies immediately for an incoming or perceived threat. This is ironic as fear seems to boycott the things that are actually useful such as a higher brain function or the ability to rationalize.

Essentially, in the natural world, there is absolutely no purpose for love. Reptiles such as crocodiles and alligators practically eat their young. Some of them abandon them and leave them to fend for themselves. This is fine. It works as you can see, as reptiles are probably the oldest life forms on the planet. Then comes the mammals. Lions, dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, and so forth whom develop a profound attachment to their young. They treat them with kindness and teach them how to live. They stick with them, feed them, nurture them, and one would argue they even love their young. Why? The reptiles have already demonstrated that their primitive albeit arguably more efficient methods of life are better for survival, so why have these complex emotions? Why have these emotions become so powerful, they almost dominate every part of our existence? I'm not particularly religious but I am an existentialist, and I do believe that there is a Self and that it is immaterial, however I do not believe it bares no connection to anything beyond the Universe or the nothingness from which it spawned.  But these thoughts, feelings, and love have no place in a seemingly rudderless world dominated entirely by survival instincts and skills. While the natural world seems to work in perfect balance with these emotions, civilization and places like the U.S.A or other fortunate countries show that it isn't necessary.

So if love has no use then it has no evolutionary value therefore rendering it pointless in the eyes of Darwinism. Yet interestingly enough, it proves to be the ultimate existential expression of the Spirit, (note I didn't say HUMAN spirit but simply SPIRIT for a reason) that connects all life together. It brings in something that Darwinism leaves out of the equation ironically because it's useless. That "something" is meaning. Love and emotions introduce meaning to existence beyond primal instinct and carnal desires. It is this meaning, that allows the weak to become strong, and the strong to become weak, and for them to co-exist simultaneously in harmony or in complete chaos. I'm not saying that emotions provide us with a peaceful world. After all, just look at these so-called 'crimes of passion' which are done in moments of great emotional intensity. Yet at the same time look at how beautiful the idea of receiving something as trivial as a flower can be to someone if that flower came from a loved one. Love doesn't promise peace or destruction. Love only give us one thing: a choice. And it's that choice that I believe, if made correctly, can usher in something beyond utopia, giving us something simple like serenity and peace for every single living creature, not person, but creature, human or not, on this planet.

Intellectual intelligence vs Emotional Intelligence: Just what is intelligence?

 This particular topic is an interesting one. To atone for the horrible writing in my previous post about narcotics, I hope to challenge my readers and step up my game. This topic won't be an easy one, so I will try to be as precise and as coherent as possible.

  The premise of this post is intellectual intelligence vs emotional intelligence. Intellectual intelligence is the use of reason and logical thinking skills to evaluate a particular problem and at the very least acknowledge it, and at the most, solve it. Intellectual thinking is used everyday when applying almost all concepts and sometimes is considered the most quintessential part of the human condition and is the fabric of a lot of progression within human existence. Rationalizing and logic has provided with many unbiased and sometimes quicker precise results when evaluating and solving problems but in it's purest sense removes emotion as it believes human emotion is weakness or perhaps, inviting room for miscalculation. To approach something from a pure intellectual standpoint would mean to actually purge oneself of emotions or emotional attachments to a particular problem being evaluated.

  Emotional intelligence embraces the the emotions as a way of obtaining knowledge, or even perhaps understanding of a particular situation. An emotionally intelligent person, in it's purest sense is someone who can dominate and control their emotions to best fit the task at hand. They can (1) Perceive emotions which is the ability to recognize and differ between emotional states, (2) Understanding emotions, which is harnessing emotions to achieve different dynamics of knowledge on a particular subject, (3) Understanding emotions which is comprehension and appreciation for emotions and (4) Manage emotions which is keeping a check on ones emotions making sure they're not erratic and out of control. This is a typical model for classifying emotional intelligence.

 This post is geared towards determining whether or not one takes precedence over the other and whether or not they can complement each other without damaging their respective integrity. I believe that they are both very useful in their own rights but can be used together in order to achieve a goal. Rational thinking is a gift from the heavens (metaphorical; I don't actually believe in heaven) to Life in general. Rational thought opens the gate way to contemplation and meditations on various issues that lead to that issue being resolved. But this raises another interesting question: Just what is intelligence?

  A general classification of intelligence is the aptness, readiness, and speed one may solve a particular problem using means such as knowledge or understanding of the principles of said problem. Another classification would be the ability to discern the right tool, mental or physical, to solve a particular problem. It is also popularly classified, and perhaps rightfully so, as the ability to acquire and apply various information to solve an obstacle or problem. It may also be an "aptitude of acquiring truths" according to Dictionary.com. I feel all of these definitions are far to constricting and simplistic for something as complex as the Human Mind.

 Each of these definitions seem relative too the problem at hand. For example a math problem such as 2+2=4 requires principle knowledge of how to add and apply the concept of addition. That's a reasonable at hand. But say what if someone has no idea how to add, yet manages to remarkably answer the question based entirely by chance. Would that make that person intelligent or lucky? Intelligence must run deeper. Intelligence in my opinion, is based upon the concept of Solve et coagula. This is the centerpiece of alchemist philosophy and thought and can be applied to almost anything. Solve et coagula is basically deconstruction and reconstruction. Intelligence to me, is essentially the ability to complete deduce a problem down to it's founding principles, and then reassemble the "pieces" or components of the problem back to bring forth a brand new understanding of the problem. 2+2=4 requires intimate understanding of not just adding, but what 2 and 4 are.  There quantity must be determined, before the principle of addition can be applied. Another sign, personal to me, of intelligence, is not simply being able to solve a problem, and attempt to understand it. To me, intelligence is not reaching a conclusion to the overall problem, but rather reaching a conclusion and pondering "why? Why is the answer so? Why can't it be anything else?". That to me, is human brilliance at work, and a truly appreciative way to look at one's self and the world.

 This is why the subject of philosophy is so palatable to me. It gives a new dynamic of thought, both emotionally, and intellectually to view something as simple as anything. Philosophy raises more questions than it could answer, yes, but that's the solve part of Solve et Coagula. So in a concise definition, intelligence is the ability to ask "why" and understand what that question particularly entails.

 Now that my definition of intelligence is established, I can take on the pertinent issue at hand. I believe that both forms of intelligence are necessary to achieve "Real" or "True" intelligence which I will call Wisdom. Wisdom to me is the marrying of intellectual and emotional intelligence and is the epitome of the mental capacity of the human mind. Intellectual intelligence and emotional intelligence, by my definition, is incomplete. I think Intellectual intelligence is necessary for the deconstruction of the problem to obtain the particular problem's principles. Understanding of fundamental principles of a problem are required to be applied usefully to a particular problem. Emotional intelligence is used particular to reconstruct it. This is to give the problem Meaning on a personal level to the individual. This gives personal investment within the problem whether it be positive or negative, thus facilitating the desire or perhaps the need to achieve a result. But when the two are used together to solve a problem, the problem takes on a whole new dynamic. One now has appreciation for the educational value of this problem. One now has found a meaning for the existence of 2+2=4 in the sense that something as trivial as this demonstrates other principles for other existent problems as is quintessential to answer any concepts expanding on this mere equation.

 All in all, I think that purity on either side is asinine as one misses the other's dynamic of the enriching experience of solving a problem and thus develops very incomplete and at the absolute worst, meaningless results of a situation. When used together however, one attains wisdom which creates the Chinese proverbial distinction between knowing a problem, and understanding it. Essentially to the Chinese, wisdom comes from the combination of intellectual and emotional intelligence, and thus develops a reverence and deep rooted understanding for any problem. Thus, in my (hopefully) humble opinion, I believe these two forms of intelligence are needed to achieve the epitome of human existence: Wisdom.

Perspective on the usage of Narcotics

 This is a post that I decided to personally address, although I'd like to stress that this is mainly a personal opinion; I don't know nor do I personally care of any medical or detrimental affects of alcohol or other mind/mood-altering Narcotics. I'd like to stress that so I don't make anyone mad.

  Narcotics, legal or non-legal, are external substances in which alter the body chemically and in some cases mentally. Personally, this rather upsets me. I would never partake in the consumption of any Narcotics. I rarely even take pain killers; in fact I pretty much avoid any pill all in all. If I get sick or perhaps a headache, I usually resort to alternative medicines of the holistic sense or to some, "pseudo-science" which may or may not be true, but if I had to chose between "pseudo-science" and narcotics, I think I'll stick with the former. I'm not condemning anyone who takes narcotics or drinks or anything. I simply dislike the idea that I am not in control of my self. I dislike anything external that may potential harm or impair my judgement or ability to think. I'm pretty much a self-proclaimed philosopher and intellectual. That said, it goes without saying that thinking is an important thing to me.

 I view any sort of addiction as an attempt to destroy the Self, perhaps physically or subjectively. The human race itself in my opinion is a beautiful species, despite it's inherently unpleasant nature. The beauty of humanity is it's sentient intelligence as well as it's will. Ergo, narcotics to me would obviously be something to avoid, as it has the ability to suppress, even perhaps, destroy the Self. Stereo-typically speaking, narcotic addictions of any kind, are either/or a subtle or blatant attempt to escape from a subjective reality in which they cannot cope with. Some people may have abusive parents or perhaps an impoverish life, but using narcotics as a temporary escape, or an elevator of social status is quite disturbing to me. To me personally, it's a bit of an insult to one's dignity when addiction is rooted itself within the mind. Thus it's highly addictive nature is a tad repugnant for my tastes. I don't denounce anyone who does it, nor do I mean to disrespect people's individual decisions. However, that doesn't I a condone drug usage.