“We The Living” is about a struggle of three individuals in Soviet Russia. Ayn Rand claims that the heroin inherits all the philosophical ideas from her.
In the beginning of the book, Kira was my model. She did not care about anyone but herself. She walked the path which would make her happy. She denounced society because according to her, oneself always comes first. The highest reverence of man is himself. Selfishness is a virtue.
A few chapters later, I lost interest on Kira. She contradicted herself because she fell in love. Her love affair(s) is unconventional. So what? She attached herself to another and that created a “society”. This is the beginning of her downfall and she never rose back.
I have been attempting to detach myself completely from everything — emotions, society, etc. I had the opportunity to complete the task 4 years ago. I also had another opportunity 5 months ago. Both opportunities were shattered by an emotion that everyone seeks and what caused Kira her downfall.
Once a man is detached, he shall live life like a comatose. So far, I have devised three phases in order to achieve complete detachment: (1) detach yourself from blood, (2) detach yourself from love, and (3) detach yourself from dependence. I shall explain each one.
Detachment from blood means to extract yourself from your family and relatives. This does not mean casting out of the house (you will do this in the third phase). What I meant here is to not care what happens to the family. You shouldn’t feel grief, envy, jealousy regarding the family. This may be the hardest because you grew up attuned to this form of collective. It’s the basic form of society — family.
Detachment from love means to not be in love with anybody. This is difficult as well because the emotions playing here are very enigmatic. However, this is the only phase where you have to overcome something that’s not inherent. It’s injected. It’s poison to selfishness. Total self control is needed in this phase. Strong will to resist external temptation is a must.
Detachment from dependence is not exactly independence. Independence is the result, but is not the task. This is the most difficult of the three because you will have to abandon all connections. You will no longer depend on others in order to live. You will not have a job, acquaintances, connection to the world. You will be completely alone.
The first phase, I have partially completed. There are still stray emotions I need to sort out. The second phase, I should have the full control in this. For now, I can’t say I have this taken care of. Lastly, I need to save in order to accomplish the third phase. I have a long way to go… What about you?
June 1st, 2008
Asustek will be releasing the second generation of its Easy to learn, Easy to work, Easy to play PC ultra-mobile notebook on May 12 in the US at a starting price of $549 (12GB SSD on WinXP). The 900 will sport an 8.9″ viewable screen - just an inch and three quarters more than its predecessor - at 1024×600 resolution. It’s increase in size does not affect the overall weight of the UMPC. It weights about 2.18 lbs and a few millimeters larger than the 701. A few more enhancements were made by Asustek to further the gap from evolving UMPCs that are joining the competition.
I am happy with my 701 so this upgrade is really not a temptation for me. However, I highly recommend Eee PC 900 to anyone who wishes to purchase a notebook. It’s really very handy and I do all my writing on the 701. I can just take it out of my bag whenever something comes into my head. It’s really a true notebook.
One advice - if you are buying one, make sure to buy the galaxy black color because the pearl white is ugly. Black looks more professional if ever you are in a meeting :D Oh, get a Brando case also ’cause it’ll look smashing.
May 7th, 2008
There is a universal law governing our daily lives. That law is the concept of right and wrong. We live our daily lives trying to be a better person by doing what is right. We navigate our lives toward righteousness. The question is “what is right and what is wrong?” Furthermore, “who decides what is right and what is wrong?” I will attempt to put my logic into words and the values I set to myself. Beware of the absurdity I may induce.
What is right and what is wrong is relative to who decides them. Therefore, the questions I posed should be contracted into one because one can’t be answered without touching the other. It is us who decides what is right and what is wrong based on the values we set to ourselves. If I value differently compared to another, my sense of what is right could be wrong to another. Preserving your values makes that act of preservation right.
A value is something (an object, emotion, etc.) that satisfies the happiness of man or guides the man’s pursuit of happiness. An individual is defined by the value he sets to himself. That is why having people in one place is never peaceful. They vary their values and thus create conflicts. Naturally speaking, man lives for himself. Think about your priorities; it always simplifies to I. A very good example would be a competition. I would cheer for a group where I belong, then I would cheer to who is closer to me, then to the closest and eventually I would cheer for myself against the rest.
Righteousness is always related to its host. Let’s say that man values an object that he doesn’t have, but another has it. The object is of critical significance towards attaining man’s happiness. However, the only way to acquire that object is by taking possession of it from another – assuming it is very rare to find because it’s only one of its kind. To man acquiring that object from another is a path to righteousness because by acquiring that object would yield to his happiness.
On the other hand, the other would see man’s action as wrong because to him that is theft. So here, we see one act perceived differently by different entities. Unfortunately for man, society is governed. The state of nature is controlled. His act would be branded as wrong. A man’s happiness is constrained by society. Again, my view on society’s direct denial of man’s eternal bliss is shown here. Man should be an island.
Religion exists based on the concept of right and wrong. If you live your life righteously, then you would go to an afterlife where everything is beautiful, otherwise you go to an afterlife of eternal suffrage. unlike most of the people, I believe I have neither a sin nor have sinned. I live my life according to the values I set for myself and have to always satisfy those values, ergo making me righteous. Does that mean I’m going to “heaven?” That’s another topic I must cover. Afterlife is a subject I have the greatest interest because it is the ony answer to all the questions.
May 7th, 2008
A man is born to serve what purpose? My guess is as good as yours. Is it to populate, shape and define the world? Maybe. What I am sure of is that a man is born waiting to die. A man’s life is finite. He lives and after a span of time, he dies – forever decayed; no soul, no afterlife. During the time the man lives, he undergoes several transformations toward his ending. He suffers through time to reach that end. Life is a process of dying.
So why do we value life so much? Life is not precious because sooner or later it is gone. It causes all kinds of pain. So why do we protect something that is worthless and destructive? What is so good about the world that we thrive to live in it longer. These questions are yet to be answered; not here, but hopefully a hint appears.
I’ve lived twenty-six worthless years and spent a decade of those years in a quest to answer these questions. I have no answer, but I realized a tiny bit of it – happiness. There is no stopping the birth of man no matter what laws, medications, family planning we implement. Time and time again, man will be born save annihilation. Even so, man will evolve one way or another. So I thought, what would man do if he has no control over his birth? He has to live life and goes in a journey where he avoids suffering that is brought by living. Only in the absence of suffering happiness is reached.
What is suffering? Suffering is a feeling of destruction. Something that will cause physical and mental aspect of man to break down. These things we know as grief, jealousy, envy, hunger, pain, torment, and many more which your imagination can define. By that definition, we can deduce that man suffers because of another. Man does not grieve because of himself, he grieves because of another. Man loves (a form of attachment) another and will do everything to keep the attachment intact. Once the attachment is lost, man undergoes a series of states of suffering - grief, loneliness, depression, etc.
Since the cause of suffering is not oneself, society gets the blame. Social attachment torments a man. Being social do bring happiness, but only until a point. In society man acquaints himself with another who would bring happiness in a moment, but would later on bring lifelong suffering. Once a man attaches himself to another, he will protect both the relationship and the other entity as if it is a treasure.
A treasure is defined as an entity which – naturally – cannot be lost. It is only lost if hidden (i.e. kept or stolen), but it still exists. Life cannot be a treasure because it is lost no matter how careful the caretaker is. What is left behind when a man dies is a pseudo-self which is also known as memory.
Protecting a treasure is already cumbersome and takes so much out of a person. That act in itself contributes to a person’s suffering. How else would the feeling be if the treasure is lost? Naturally, anger, grief, disbelief, etc arise. As previously stated these are sufferings. It is true that having that treasure makes a man happy, but it’s troublesome taking care of that treasure.
In conclusion, eternal bliss cannot be attained by sharing with others. Eternal bliss is for an individual, not a group that’s why it is so difficult to achieve. The happiness we enjoy now is only temporary and we should enjoy that as much as possible. Think not of the future nor the past, enjoy the moment because it is now that will shape the future. Be happy if you’re happy.
May 5th, 2008
I am really irritated with people who think they absolutely know what they are saying about the future. People who push themselves to me so as to satisfy their happiness and I lose mine. People who promise that I would be happy in the future. People who show you in your face that they are exerting an effort. People who predict that you will regret things in the future.
What do I care? There is no outside force that can convince or influence what I want. My decisions are only influenced with what I want. Satisfying my desires (wants) is the road to my happiness.
April 30th, 2008
Previous Posts
