Ying-Yang

The discussion around Ying and Yang is one of the most beaten dead horses. I'm still going to write about it. Hopefully in a way new to the ones reading and writing this blog.

My understanding of Ying and Yang can be summed up quite quickly. Comparison is required. If you have read my previous posts about value, then you will have read that I believe that we as humans have no understanding of true value. It is all based off of something else in comparison. This directly relates to my understanding of Ying-Yang. There is no light without dark, no good without bad, etc. Opposing forces basically create the opposite's existence. The extension that I struggle to follow is not only is the opposite force is not only opposing but also within.

For instance if I am pushing against a big block. I put 50kilograms of pressure against it without it moving. Obviously the friction of the block on the ground is strong enough to keep it in place. I push against it and it pushes back. Ying and Yang. I stop pushing and in turn it stops pushing. The opposing force diminishes exactly as the initial force diminishes. Is there a part of the block that wants to move the way I am pushing? Is there a part of me that wants the block to stay put? I'm unsure if this can be applied across the board. Some would argue that it is not meant to be and others would.

Let me talk about one faucet that is referenced often. Yin/Black/Shady/North will play the part of evil. Yang/White/Sunshine/South will play the part of good. What is the consequence on the universe if there is ever a man that does not have any evil in him. The Yin inside could be the temptation but there is no balance within him. Does he then become in balance with the world? The world being Yin and him being Yang? Is the world intrinsically evil? I think/hope not. Maybe the Ying/Yang instead become chance and intention.

Identity Proclaiming

Oft do I see cars with the evidence of bumper stickers past. These faded, half removed, and circles of residue speak to former passions of the driver. Lately I have noticed a trend in a few of the collections of poems read in spare time. If a poet releases a collection early in life, this collection proclaims in a way who the person is or what they stand for at the time. Then later in life the poet releases a new collection that declares a new identity and reject the old.

By no means am I saying that the above progression from one stance to another is bad or incorrect. Growth, change, and progression (hopefully forwards) are important and arguably required. What baffles me is the desire of so many to proclaim their identity. Declaring a view or a state for seemingly no other reason besides the fact that it is what is currently believed.

When this applies to one's own state, view, or belief I can understand in part. That being said, the larger of the parts reasons that these are likely to change and should not be proclaimed so strongly. Speaking to one's understanding or the world, this too seems destined to change. The scientific community has been incorrect about many many things and still have many "unexplainables" left lingering that do not fit into our current theories or understandings of how our universe works.

So for someone to claim that a male and female pair every animal on earth (besides the ones that were too big or mean) lined up and walked onto a big boat to escape a flood is just as outrages as someone explaining the horizon problem by saying that matter just 'moved really fast' (faster than the speed of light) immediately after the big bang. Both seem ludicrous to me and warrant a new oncoming knowledge to come and debunk what I current believe and know.

So why proclaim what I believe or understand so far so strongly? Sadly this proclamation is normally accompanied by a hard heart and a closed mind. Can we not fear, stop clinging to thoughts/beliefs for peace, and be comfortable being unsure of anything? You tell me.

Money: Part 1 - Value

Money is such an interesting topic that it warrants two posts (probably more). The best place to start could be back at the beginning. When people first started making coins. Wait. Let's go back further. The first time someone that something was beautiful, useful, or rare. Now this thing has value. This is where I think all the issues begin because something has gained value from another motive than solely out of necessity. Here enters money.

We use something that is cheap to produce but represents purchasing power instead of always resulting to a true bartering system. Now instead of only coveting items that other people own, we covet the money to buy those items as well. The goal has even shifted. Are we really amassing money for a specific object or just to amass money for "whatever we want"?

No value on an item is totally stable and safe. The value of money of a government can obviously fall. The value of something in the public eye can change or drop. Rarely do these prices come back to actual supply and demand.

Redemption

Defining redemption is a difficult task. 1) An act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed. 2) Atonement for guilt. Both eventually get to the same phrase via the word redeem or atonement. This phase is "to make amends" for guilt, a fault, or a shortcoming.

Take the South Korean swimmer Park Tae-hwan. In the Olympics in 2004, he dove into the pool a fraction of a second too early and was disqualified. Fast forward through four years of guilt and intense training. The year is 2008. The location is in Beijing, China. Park stands beside the pool about to begin the Men's 400m Freestyle final. He has already passed multiple tests in order to get to this point but none of that matters now. All that really matters is the next 400 meters.

I could begin writing about the rest of the things I want to discuss to build suspense and eventually end the story in a very cinematic way. Instead, I'll just tell you that he won the gold metal. Ta-da. Even with my horrible ending it is still a great story of redemption.

If a man kills someone, how can he redeem himself? By having remorse, never doing it again, and then saving an innocent person? Does all redemption deal with other people? What if there were only two people left on earth and one kills the other. Is there any thing that the murderer can do to redeem himself?

Blogging

Writing has often been a therapeutic experience for me. It could be in a journal or in imaginary lines with my finger one word at a time. For me though, there is really two kinds of writing. One being stream of consciousness and the other being tested thought. Most of my writings in my journals in the past has been entirely stream of consciousness where I am working through something as I write.

Then came blogging. All neat with no paper. Searchable (not a word but I like it). Sortable. Editable. I mean, how could anyone with a desire to write resist? Except now there is another variable. Other people can now read what I am thinking. Some people get a rise out of this looming idea. "Someone out 'there' could be reading what I'm writing", they say. Others simply turn off the ability for anyone to see but themselves.

Again I find myself in the middle. The fact that my friends have the ability to read and vet my thoughts is invaluable to me. At the same time, I have thoughts that I have yet to decide anything on and almost need to write them out so I can work through my own thought process.

So I have decided to change my standards for this blog and write stream of consciousness again. This could result in more ignorant thoughts to be presented but I am fine with that because it is a part of my process. Also friends can now read and respond with new thoughts, criticisms, and possible directions without me having to walk through where I am at with them personally. Hopefully this is once again increase the frequency on posts.

Tick Tock

Today I am wondering what makes me tick. Is it repetition, conditioning, or something else? [20 minutes pass] Just now I have determined yet again that it is the small things in the day that cause me to get up and do it again. [10 minutes later] I just wrote an entire post and deleted it because I believe that I have written about it before.

How many times have I needed to reiterate ideas, thoughts, convictions, purpose, and conclusions to myself? Many times over and over. Is this a doubt in and of myself? Is it a healthy cycle of questioning the correct items? Perhaps, the growth cycle seems large but is slow moving forward. Is it that the thought doesn't sink into my subconscious and is forgotten?

Time for me to get over myself. I have a feeling that about 80,000 people are probably dead in China from the earthquake. I have a feeling that 100,000 people are dead or are going to die in Myanmar (Burma) but that the military junta is hiding it. Even more unknown number in Darfur are suffering daily. How small and also how large each life is valued.

"A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic." - Stalin
I'd like to rewrite this now, "A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a atrocity." I say "atrocity" because many times the million can be avoided and limited. So much death that happens day to day could be avoided. What am I doing?
First, I am trying to share my ideas and values because movements start with beliefs on a subject.

Give money for Myanmar.

Both Oxfam and Triangle Generation Humanitaire (TGH) are doing great things all over. Personally, I believe these two NGOs are making the largest impact of the Darfur situation and in the refugee camps in Chad. Water is still the biggest need.

Go to Oxfam's volunteer page.

Live healthy; which includes helping people.

Untested, mother approved.

So, I am beginning to worry that I am typing out ignorant thought. In the grand scheme of things, we know nothing but everything is to be revealed. Still, I'd rather be at least on the correct track. Untested thought though is inherently incorrect. Obviously I test it myself to gain some since of direction from known boundaries but the possibilities left still seem limitless.

No point in getting too down on myself though. Even Einstein didn't get it right on the first shot. I wonder how many theories he had before he got into the meat of his research. Or how many times it evolved.

People are incredibly interesting because they are a completely different person. Then to increase this, they also bring this completely different perspective on the world. Expressing apparently simple ideas that revolutionize the most complicated of theories.

What amazes me though, is how accepted it is to believe in untested thoughts wholeheartedly. Even to go as far as to teach these thoughts. Hear is where I begin to fight myself though. Is it the teacher's fault for having untested thought or is it mine for not testing his/her thought? How does the teacher know when the thought is tested enough to teach? Is it "ready" when no one in the crowd knows the thought it wrong? That last question sounds so counter intuitive; thought would only be discussed among people who aren't as far along as the teacher.

The chance to be incorrect must be taken. The feedback on what is said must be efficient and then corrected to whomever was taught? Wouldn't this cause the same topic to be taught and corrected for many cycles? Or should the responsibility again fall on the class attendees to seek the most correct? I am unsure.

Time for my broad "easy" answer: balance. The responsibility is shared. The teacher is supposed to teach the most correct idea possible or the current understanding of humans as of today. Then the responsibility to push the thought forward is the class attendees. This should be the expectation of every person.