Cloud

I'm in a cloud of sorts now. My thoughts are all dispersed so much around in my mindscape, just so... ethereal. And the cloud doesn't look good. I guess since I can't really see this imaginary cloud of mine, I should say "It doesn't feel good". But "look" seems to resonate with what I'm feeling more. Something's wrong in the cloud. But it's all mist. Sure, I can just push it all aside and live on with life. But is that the right thing to do? 

There's something toxic in the cloud. And it's eating me, slowly, somehow. Yet there's nothing I can do now. It's pretty thick. And from in there, all the cloud's done is to irrationalize. 

There's nothing bothering me. Nothing concrete. Yet deep down, something is. Irrational.

Stay

Stay here. Don't leave. 

Stay here. Don't leave. 2 statements of desire. Desire of companionship. A direct request of physical companionship.

Only because of an implicit emotional attachment, lives intertwined. I guess I am learning, learning to let people go. Doesn't mean it's easy. Not at all.

I Want It All

I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now

I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now

Adventure seeker on an empty street

Just an alley creeper light on his feet

A young fighter screaming with no time for doubt

With the pain and anger can't see a way out

It ain't much I'm asking I heard him say

Gotta find me a future move out of my way

I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now

I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now

Listen all you people come gather round

I gotta get me a game plan gotta shake you to the ground

Just give me what I know is mine

People do you hear me just give me the sign

It ain't much I'm asking if you want the truth

Here's to the future for the dreams of youth

I want it all (give it all) I want it all I want it all and I want it now

I want it all (yes I want it all) I want it all (hey)

I want it all and I want it now

I'm a man with a one track mind

So much to do in one life time (people do you hear me)

Not a man for compromise and where's and why's and living lies

So I'm living it all (yes I'm living it all)

And I'm giving it all (and I'm giving it all)

Yeah yeah

Yeah yeah yeah yeah

I want it all all all all

It ain't much I'm asking if you want the truth

Here's to the future

Hear the cry of youth (hear the cry hear the cry of youth)

I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now

I want it all (yeah yeah yeah) I want it all I want it all and I want it now

I want it

Now

I want it I want it

Talking

How much does talking change the thoughts and views of people? Sure does a lot. Words. What's so powerful about sound? Sure, it's energy. But with so much less raw power as compared to other forms of energy. The power of words transcends the physical. Words hit hard to the mind, the soul, the heart.

Sure took very long, but LD has changed his perception of the results for the election. No overriding to be done now. But that is, for now. What happened? It's not my words which changed anything. Neither is it the elder captain. Nor the current one to keep the record straight and clean. It's an outsider. The well-said words of an outsider.

Those well-said words. How did they affect me? The fire in me is quenched. What if LD and the outsider had done this all on purpose. The whole set-up. Just something to silent the desires and thoughts of mine. A cacophony of words. A cacophony of words made to dance through the defenses and rigors of my mind. Not words hitting hard. But words slipping.

If I did not realize the possibility of this "discordant mixture of sounds" being not so random, carefully planned and directed. Would I just bounce on along with life feeling satisfied? Would that be better?

I do realize this possibility, though. Is this, too, carefully planned and directed? Maybe to confuse me and put me off guard? To shake my attention from the tasks at hand?

Talking. Thinking. These words hold much more meaning than words can place. Or maybe, it's just me. Too ill-skilled to use my talking to affect the thinking of others. My words unable to capture my thoughts. Unable to capture the conversations running and dancing in this mindscape of mine.

If words can wield so much power, how much more can actions wield?

Judge

Which mortal man has the right to judge? No man is given the power to judge. Only the entirety of mankind can hold judgement against one man. The formation of the social contract, gives the right to society to judge upon a man. But yet once more, what if one chooses not to partake in this contract? What then? How then? It would no longer be right. It will be ruthless. But it will still be done. Necessary. Or so they claim

Random Word List

Here's a list of random words from http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/randomword/randomwordplus.aspx

1. Intake
2. Commodity
3. Lock
4. Craft
5. Surprise
6. Stay
7. Girlfriend
8. Cloud
9. Smoking
10. Flood
11. Sacking
12. Boiling
13. Judge
14. Talking
15. Cue
16. Angelic
17. Giddier
18. Hottest
19. Ethically
20. Expressly

You may wonder what in the world I'm doing! Well, I have decided that for the next 20 days, i shall post about one of these words in the list! Hope it runs well and interesting! xD

Worthy

Worthy adj.
1. Deserving effort, attention or respect.

Am I worthy of you? Am I worthy of all these roles I have been given, or born to? Am I worthy of my birthright? Or am I only worthy of doubts? Doubts which incapacitate men.

Netball court~

A Wonderful Jewel

An iridescence beyond compare, dazzling from the brightest hues of yellow to the coldest shades of black onyx. This wonderful jewel, which dances in all its vivid colors above us, yet we do not see. But if time were to dash, to make the sky as beautifully radiant as it can be, would our lives be nothing but insignificant compared to welkin?

Maybe that's it. The passing of thyme in our relative is simply a crawl, but thyme was meant to run, and in its running, the heavens shall dance in its full glory, in different to the runnings of the seeds of Gaia.  

It's absurd. It's anesthetic (part 2)

Say all you want, poor souls! Is life so fast for you that all you can see is the external?

It's absurd. It's anesthetic

It's absurd. It's anesthetic

-The Jackal-

The Jackal said this in reference to the fact that people rationalize methods/forms of killing. But thinking about it... Isn't this true for everything? Whenever things get messy/difficult/confusing, we rationalize the impacts/implications and all the "leaves" and "branches" of the issue without tackling the core of it. The trunk. The roots.

Satisfied with our lies, our denials, we move on, thinking we conquered it. But no.

Jerry was the kind of guy you love to hate. He was always in a good mood and always had something positive to say. When someone would ask him how he was doing, he would reply, “If I were any better, I would be twins!”

He was a unique manager because he had several waiters who had followed him around from restaurant to restaurant. The reason the waiters followed Jerry was because of his attitude. He was a natural motivator. If an employee was having a bad day, Jerry was there telling the employee how to look on the positive side of the situation.

Seeing this style really made me curious, so one day I went up to Jerry and asked him, “I don’t get it! You can’t be a positive person all of the time. How do you do it?” Jerry replied, “Each morning I wake up and say to myself, Jerry, you have two choices today. You can choose to be in a good mood or you can choose to be in a bad mood.’ I choose to be in a good mood. Each time something bad happens, I can choose to be a victim or I can choose to learn from it. I choose to learn from it. Every time someone comes to me complaining, I can choose to accept their complaining or I can point out the positive side of life. I choose the positive side of life.”

“Yeah, right, it’s not that easy,” I protested.

“Yes it is,” Jerry said. “Life is all about choices. When you cut away all the junk, every situation is a choice. You choose how you react to situations. You choose how people will affect your mood. You choose to be in a good mood or bad mood. The bottom line: It’s your choice how you live life.”

I reflected on what Jerry said. Soon thereafter, I left the restaurant industry to start my own business. We lost touch, but often thought about him when I made a choice about life instead of reacting to it. Several years later, I heard that Jerry did something you are never supposed to do in a restaurant business: he left the back door open one morning and was held up at gunpoint by three armed robbers. While trying to open the safe, his hand, shaking from nervousness, slipped off the combination. The robbers panicked and shot him. Luckily, Jerry was found relatively quickly and rushed to the local trauma center. After 18 hours of surgery and weeks of intensive care, Jerry was released from the hospital with fragments of the bullets still in his body. I saw Jerry about six months after the accident. When I asked him how he was, he replied, “If I were any better, I’d be twins. Wanna see my scars?”

I declined to see his wounds, but did ask him what had gone through his mind as the robbery took place. “The first thing that went through my mind was that I should have locked the back door,” Jerry replied. “Then, as I lay on the floor, I remembered that I had two choices: I could choose to live, or I could choose to die. I chose to live.”

“Weren’t you scared? Did you lose consciousness?” I asked. Jerry continued, “The paramedics were great. They kept telling me I was going to be fine. But when they wheeled me into the emergency room and I saw the expressions on the faces of the doctors and nurses, I got really scared. In their eyes, I read, ‘He’s a dead man.’ I knew I needed to take action.”

“What did you do?” I asked.

“Well, there was a big, burly nurse shouting questions at me,” said Jerry. “She asked if I was allergic to anything. ‘Yes,’ I replied. The doctors and nurses stopped working as they waited for my reply… I took a deep breath and yelled, ‘Bullets!’ Over their laughter, I told them, ‘I am choosing to live. Operate on me as if I am alive, not dead.”

Jerry lived thanks to the skill of his doctors, but also because of his amazing attitude. I learned from him that every day we have the choice to live fully. Attitude, after all, is everything.

By Francie Baltazar-Schwartz

Aug 11 2012

In the times of lords and barons and the aristocracy, men were not born equal. Some men were born better than others. A class above others. And everyone knew that, everyone acknowledged that. The aristocracy took care of those of lower classes, for it is their duty, a responsibility attached to their birthright.

In out times, all men are born equal. Equal in chance, equal in rights. Or so they say. And they say. Equal men now fight implicit wars against each others to grapple on to the top. And everyone knows that. Men against men. No quarters, no sympathy. After all, everyone is born equal. Equal in doubt, equal in viciousness, equal in ferocity. I win, you lose. Equality is our birthright, with no responsibilities attached.

In the time of aristocracy, groups of men pit themselves against groups of men. House against house. Clans against clans. The resultant spoils distributed unevenly across the various classes. Unevenly, but at least, distributed.

In our time of equalness, every man fights for his own. When men rally together to fight a common foe, and emerges victorious, they don't share the spoils. They fight over it. Ally against ally. Comrade against comrade.

And that, is the ugliness of the world we live in now

Breaking a Man

You can't break a man the way you break a dog or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands. To break a man's will, to break his spirit, you have to break his mind. Men have this idea that we can fight with dignity, that there's a proper way to kill someone. It's absurd. It's anesthetic; we need it to endure the bloody horror of murder. You must destroy that idea. Show them what a messy, terrible thing it is to kill a man, and then show them that you relish in it. Shoot to wound, then execute the wounded. Burn them. Take them in close combat. Destroy their preconceptions of what a man is and you become their personal monster. When they fear you, you become stronger. You become better. But let's never forget: it's a display, it's a posture, like a lion's roar or a gorilla thumping at its chest. If you lose yourself in the display, if you succumb to the horror, then you become the monster. You become reduced; not more than a man, but less - and it can be fatal.

-The Jackal-

Plain Gold Ring

Kimbra's singing is simply magical~

The Social Contract

Let's take a very mathematical view (game theory) on the concept of a social contract...

The definition of the social contract is simply the surrender of some of our rights for the protection of ourselves.

Let's explore this concept logically~

In a system of 2 people:

Let us take a simplistic view that A can kill B and vice versa, and that upon killing the other, the survivor can take the belongings of the other.

If either kills the other:

• The killer gains the other's possession
• The killer removes the risk of being killed (there's no one else to kill him!

If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):

• They each keep the possessions of their own
• There is this big risk of being killed by the other as after one dies, there is no one else to uphold the tenets/law of the social contract.

It is pretty obvious that in a system of 2 people, the social contract fails.

In a system of 3 people:

Using the same simplistic view:

If one kills one of the other:

• The killer gains the other's possession
• The killer removes one chance of being killed (one less person out there possible to kill him)

Now let's put in a new concept, that the possibility of killing successfully is proportionate to the amount of possessions one has. (on a macro perspective, take it as though a nation with more resources can have higher chance of conquering a nation with less)

• The killer has an upper hand against the remaining survivor, and can thus subject power over him (or even kill him if the killer wants)

If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):

• They each keep the possessions of their own
• There is this big risk of being killed by one of the others as after one dies, there is one who can try to uphold the tenets/laws of the social contract, but will ultimately fail.

It is thus pretty obvious again, that in a system of 3 people, the social contract again fails. 

In a system of 4 people:

Using the same simplistic view:

If one kills one of the other:

• The killer gains the other's possession
• The killer removes one chance of being killed (one less person out there possible to kill him)
• The killer has an upper hand against the remaining 2 survivor, individually, and can thus subject power over him (or even kill him if the killer wants). BUT if the 2 remaining survivors team up together, then the killer will only be on par with both of the 2 survivors. (though pragmatically possibly less)

If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):

• They each keep the possessions of their own
• There is a risk of being killed by one of the others as after one dies, the killer will be on an equal standing (or almost equal stand) as the 2 remaining non-killing survivors.

Thus, in a system of 4 people, the social contract fails once more. 

Before we head on to a system of 5 people, let us note some of the changes which are occuring in the advantages/disadvantages of killing (as written above).
We can conclude that the social contract will be broken if the advantages of killing outweighs the advantages of being nice and not killing.
As more people are bound into the social contract, the benefits of killing starts to decrease in relative to being nice, let's prove this with a system of 5 people~

In a system of 5 people:

Using the same simplistic view:

If one kills one of the other:

• The killer gains the other's possession
• The killer removes one chance of being killed (one less person out there possible to kill him)
• The killer does NOT have an upper hand against the remaining 3 survivors, for individually, the killer can overpower and thus subject power over any other one(or even kill him if the killer wants). BUT if the 3 remaining survivors team up together, then the killer will be on risk of being killed, after all, the other 3 will acknowledge that the killing tendencies of our killer is potentially detrimental to their own well being.

If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):

• They each keep the possessions of their own
• There is a risk of being killed by one of the others BUT they can at least be at a peace of mind to know that if someone kills them, their killer will not survive either.

In a system of 5 people, entering into a social contract is beneficial.

Notes:

• I assume that everyone wants to live
• I assume that everyone would want to live better if possible
• I assumed that killers act on their own (no collaboration in killing), if such a contract comes in, then ohh well, everything will be much different now.
• I did not take into account the fact that an attempt of killing another person may result in injury which will make oneself more vulnerable.
• In the same way, I did not take into account the element of time or skill (the killer can quickly kill everyone else before they can react) and the killer may be ultra buff and can kill 3 people in single combat kinda thing.
• AND I assumed that upon the existence of a killer, everyone else would team up together to stop the guy who broke the social contract.

These notes bring about a lot of implications:

The existence of collaboration in killing results in the possibility that killing can still occur on a large scale if a group of people decides to kill another group; a consensus breaking of the social contract.

The fact that killing another person may result in injury dissuades people from killing each other even further than just simply through the tenets of the social contract.

Time/Skill factors come in to a large extent! Individuals will try to make themselves more skilled at eliminating others as if that happens, they may ultimately be able to exert control over the rest (either after killing some poor dude, or without killing at all). This will result in all individuals making themselves more skilled at killing, not only to gain control, but due to the fear of being killed if they become (relatively) too weak.

If there are clear signs of disharmony and potential that upon a murder, the rest will not rise together to fight (or kill) the breaker of the social contract, killing has a higher chance of happening.

My longest post in a really long while... (possibly even my longest) shall elaborate on more next time!

I love the harmonizing~~

Is this what they meant by "kindred spirits"?