Devil's Mind

The False Dichotomy of Friendship and Romantic Companionship

2012-02-02T04:25:00.000+02:00

In a previous post I hinted at the problematic distinction between friendship and romantic companionship. I have stumbled upon a very interesting post that expresses my concern in a quite eloquent manner.

The following are excerpts from that post:

I recently witnessed many discussions on how acceptable it is to pursue a friendship with someone you're interested in romantically, and I keep hearing opinions that are absolutely baffling to me. I hear things like: it's wrong, it's dishonest, it's not a "real" friendship, the other person will be rightfully furious at you when they find out, etc. etc.

It seems that, for all these people, friendship and romance are required to develop on absolutely distinct paths, right off the bat; otherwise, they see it as wrong somehow.

I suspect that the difference between us is this: they see friendship as opposed to a romantic relationship, like the two are mutually exclusive, whereas I see friendship as being a part of romantic relationship. Moreover, it is an absolutely vital part – I can’t have romantic relationships without it. All of my romantic relationships began with friendship!

Another point: friendship is not only a vital part of a relationship – it is also the most important one, by far! The most rewarding, the most fun, the most worthy to pursue. Whenever I really like someone, I’ll always be willing to give up the sex in order to be able to be their friend.

When I am trying to become friends with someone, it is because I find them interesting and fun and I want to be their friend. Now, I may also want to sleep with them; but I can’t emphasize the “also” enough. The romance is not mandatory – the friendship is. First, foremost and most importantly – I want to be their friend.

For me, spending time and energy on a friend is its own reward... Otherwise, what kind of friendship is that?! And regarding the emotional turmoil – yes, I agree, it can be not easy sometimes. But it’s totally worth it. (At least for me.)

source: Dishonest Friendship?

Although the concluding remarks in that post are a little bit off-topic, I am going to include them because I find them enlightening and address some issues commonly encountered in practice:

This post has a dual goal:

If you’re my friend, and you realize that I’m in love with you – don’t conclude that my friendship is not genuine. It is.

If you are interested in me romantically, ask yourself: if a fairy told you that she looked into the future and I definitely won't sleep with you, ever – would that knowledge make you not want to be my friend anymore?

If the answer is yes – that you’re interested in my friendship only on condition for the prospect of sex – please, fuck off! I mean it – we’re not right for each other, I don’t need you in my life.
But it is completely okay if you are interested in sex – as long as you are interested in me regardless of ever having it.

Nightmares That Kill 4: Who Are You? I Ask Myself

2012-01-30T13:01:00.001+02:00

Infected Mushrooms in "In Front of Me":

Why can't I see what's in front of me?
I see the doors that I can't open
Adding locks from time to time
When it opens something blocks me,
and I'm asking myself why

Did I take the steps I wanted? Was it just a state of mind?
I feel sorry for myself everytime I close my eyes

And I fall into a hole and I can't take no more
And I fall into a hole and I can't take no more
And I fall into a hole and I can't take no more
(Well I can't take no more)
Why can't I see what's in front of me?
Why can't I see what's in front of me?

What's behind the door I wonder
Must be brighter than my past
Will I feel a little different when I take myself across?
Was it really worth the journey? Was it just a foolish task?
I feel sorry for myself when I open up my eyes
And I fall into a hole and I can't no more (Full lyrics)

I have no nightmares anymore.... I have no dreams either!!
Have I broken?! Or have I finally mended?!

PS: Check Nightmares That Kill 1/2/3

Fear Ruins

2012-01-16T22:43:00.000+02:00

Today, I stared fear in the face and it was ugly...
Today, I realized that a happy person is the one that can bravely face fear without hesitation!

Words From Ayn Rand: Love and Happiness

2011-12-03T07:39:00.001+02:00

Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values.

Love is a command to rise to one's highest potential, the best and noblest vision of oneself. Love is a reward, the greatest we can earn, granted to us for the moral qualities we have achieved in our life.

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character.

A desire presupposes the possibility of action to achieve it; action presupposes a goal which is worth achieving.

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another —an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.

“To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'”

To love is to value. The man who tells you that it is possible to value without values, to love those whom you appraise as worthless, is the man who tells you that it is possible to grow rich by consuming without producing and that paper money is as valuable as gold....

-------

There are two aspects of man’s existence which are the special province and expression of his sense of life: love and art.

I am referring here to romantic love, in the serious meaning of that term — as distinguished from the superficial infatuations of those whose sense of life is devoid of any consistent values, i.e., of any lasting emotions other than fear. Love is a response to values. It is with a person’s sense of life that one falls in love —with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person’s character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is one’s own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one’s own basic values in the person of another. It is not a matter of professed convictions (though these are not irrelevant); it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony.

Many errors and tragic disillusionments are possible in this process of emotional recognition, since a sense of life, by itself, is not a reliable cognitive guide. And if there are degrees of evil, then one of the most evil consequences of mysticism —in terms of human suffering— is the belief that love is a matter of “the heart,” not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy. Love is the expression of philosophy —of a subconscious philosophical sum— and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then —and only then— it is the greatest reward of man’s life.

-------

Ayn Rand

Compersion: Polyamory Realized

2011-06-29T17:24:00.001+03:00

Compersion is defined as taking joy in the joy of others. It is the opposite of envy, which is characterized by feelings of spite towards the joy of others. In the context of relationships it is the healthy alternative to jealousy.

Love is a joyous emotion. If a friend or somebody we care about falls in love, we'd be happy for them. We would share with them their joy, and wish them the best of luck, and sincerely hope it will work out for the best for them. We would take inspiration from their smiles and enthusiasm...

Isn't it odd that when people claim to be in love they would express intention of compersion, and tell their partners that their own happiness is elevated when their partner is happy, yet if their partner fell in love they would deny those feelings of compersion and indulge jealousy instead?!

Isn't it odd that some people can share the joy of love with friends and acquaintances, but not their significant others?!

Cruel Man

2011-06-29T12:55:00.000+03:00

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."

Thomas Paine

Nightmares That Kill 3: Far Away From Home

2011-06-21T02:13:00.002+03:00

Sometimes people have experiences that help them realize certain wisdom that is not commonly accessible to the common folk. Such wisdom can be extremely insightful, and I have been looking around YouTube for such an inspiring insights. Transgenderism is a unique experience and so I want to share a video I especially liked.

This video is one of a Female-to-Male transguy sharing his experience of how he discovered his transgendered identity. It touched me a lot at a personal level, and here are some of the parts I especially liked:

I knew right from the start that I wasn't a lesbian. And I think we just innately know our communities, so I just knew it wasn't my people. In a sense that was scary; I was like shit, am I somebody who is obsessed with alienation or what?!

So I think I had my big AHA moment when I moved to the little city I am living in now about three years ago. I went to see a show by this transguy hip-hop group, it was for female-to-male trans folk and sang a lot about their trans experience, and I specifically remember being at that show, and like first or second song I was like that is me, that is my experience up there. It was such an incredible moment, it was like that moment of feeling like I found my people for the first time. Can you imagine?! I never had that feeling like I was with my people, and I always felt like I was looking. And I was like that's my experience, but at the same time: "That's me, I am a tranny, what do I do now?! Oh my god, how am I gonna deal with this?! Is this really my experience?! Am I really brave enough to make all those changes?!"

In a sense, we have this innate compass of who we are, but we are always like trying to pull it up to find the words to tell ourselves... And a lot of the ways that we discover things is like in each other... So basically I just never had a mirror to look at, you know?!

Like when I went to this camp this summer I completely freaked out! And the thing in part, I had never been in a place with all trans people! It was really awesome but it was also really scary, because I also knew that I was not taking steps to be who I was.

PS: Check Nightmares That Kill 1/2

Polyamory: The Ethical Problems of Monogamy

2011-06-17T07:06:00.003+03:00

I have always had ethical problems with closed relationships and monogamy. I regard love as great and sacred, and for anything to contradict that seems unethical to me. This is because our capacity for love is the source of ethics and morality, and to label love as wrong and immoral is such a contradiction! I was always amazed by the common belief that monogamy somehow is an ideal of love. This belief always seemed problematic, and in reality I believe that monogamy is anti-love and anti-ethical rather than an ideal.

The question that is crucial here is: How can you deny love in the name of love?! How can you state that love is the reason that love is wrong?!

I have found a very interesting post about the ethical dilemma of monogamy that states my view on the topic in a quite eloquent manner. The following is an excerpt from that post:

For most poly people out there, there's really nothing wrong with monogamy. Both mono and poly are valid relationship models, and everyone chooses the one which best fits them. I really wish I could wholeheartedly agree with this... however, I must admit that monogamy clashes with my ethics. And here's why:

It makes a person feel guilty about having a feeling that I consider to be one of the most important feelings of all. Our ability to connect with other people, to admire other people for their greatness, to be attracted to what we value (spiritually and physically), the ability to love – is probably our most vital characteristic in this life. Monogamy takes a somewhat controversial stance towards it – this property is considered wonderful in a person if he is single, but once he already has one romantic relationship, this very same property is labeled as extremely immoral and wrong. Well, newsflash, everyone: the ability to fall in love does not miraculously disappear when one finds a partner! OK, so maybe for some people it does. Maybe. For most of us, it does not; and polyamory finds this wonderful. In monogamy, however, it is usually considered very wrong to even be attracted to someone else – even if you never act upon these feelings. So, basically, if you're in a monogamous relationship, and there's this other person that you realize is absolutely awesome, then you should feel somewhat guilty. You should reject this realization.

And this is what ticks me off. For me, it's all very simple, really: Love is great. Sex is great. If a doctrine states that love and sex between two consenting adults is immoral, then that doctrine is wrong.

source: What's Wrong with Monogamy

Asexual Perspectives: Discovering Asexuality

2011-06-10T16:45:00.004+03:00

A very interesting article titled, "How Discovering My Asexuality Set Me Free".

How Discovering My Asexuality Set Me Free

I was 21 when I found out I was asexual, and it changed everything in my life – my perception of myself, my expectations for the future, my understanding of the world. In a way, it more than changed my life; nothing was ever the same after that discovery, and I often say that a new life started for me then – that the person I became once I started identifying as asexual and seeing the world through new eyes was so different from the one I had been until then that it could not be the same person at all. It was a new me – someone with a new view of the world, different hopes, and far more possibilities.

I do not believe that I was born asexual – I do not believe that our sexual orientation (or our romantic orientation, or most of our other preferences for that matter) are already set at birth. I am not a big fan of the “it's all genetic” theories. I strongly believe that our environment, and the various things we experience as we grow up and later as we grow older, are what makes us who we are, and I think I can pinpoint some of the things that made me asexual, or at least some symptoms of that change taking place, back when I was about nine or ten years old. No, it was nothing awful – I was not sexually abused, I was not exposed to sexually explicit material, I was not brought up in fear of sex. But many little things happened and combined themselves in that way and I became asexual. I have never regretted it – I may not have been born asexual, but there are many elements of my personality that make this orientation especially appropriate and, indeed, probably the most suitable for me. Maybe, in fact, these elements did contribute to making me asexual. In truth, I do not care much about how it happened; I just think about it sometimes because I want to understand such things. But I am certainly glad it happened, and even more glad that I eventually found out about it; in fact, the only negative thing about my asexuality is that for so long I was not aware of it, and that if I had not become aware of it I would certainly have been very unhappy without ever understanding why or what I could do to change that.

Before I discovered that asexuality existed, I never suspected that I was different in that way (there were other ways I knew I was different from other people, though). When I thought about sex, it was as something that would happen to me someday – I would meet the right person (at the time I thought it would be a guy), fall in love with him, and we would “make love” and it would be wonderful, like in the romance novels I had read. I never asked myself if I really wanted this; I did not know it was possible not to want it. I never asked myself if having sex would really be so wonderful, when I felt nauseous and deeply uncomfortable whenever I read more factual and realistic (but not necessarily detailed) descriptions of sex, like in biology class when we talked about human reproduction, or the couple of times I looked up sex education websites. I did not think it was possible not to want sex, so it had to mean that this discomfort would pass when I met the right person.

When I discovered that asexuality existed, I did not think it might apply to me – it was too “special” an orientation, too rare, and I was not really aware that I was not interested in sex anyway (since I expected I would only be interested with the right guy). But when I eventually (for other reasons) had to question my orientation, asexuality appeared the only possible answer – and when I decided that it had to be the right one, I felt relieved. I had never felt pressured before, but now I was liberated; I had never thought that I might not want to have sex, but suddenly I was happy to know that indeed I did not have to – and that I probably would not.

Becoming aware of my asexuality allowed me to understand that I should not take anything for granted about myself or the world. I suddenly understood that I had choices where before I had always believed I had none – that maybe I did not truly feel or want things that were supposed to be experienced and desired by everyone – and I began questioning many aspects of my life that I had never thought much about before. This led me to realize that it was possible to love people deeply without being “in love” with them, to want to be close to them without this closeness being necessarily achieved by dating them, and to have fantasies but not actually want them to become true. It allowed me to understand what I truly wanted my life to be like.

Now, three years later, I think that discovering I was asexual is probably the best thing that ever happened to me. I do not think very often about what this orientation describes – my lack of interest in sex – but I am grateful every day for the many other things my awareness of it has brought me – all the choices I discovered I could make, all the new ways I discovered I could relate to other people and love them, all the possible futures that I now see open before me. Because I know I do not conform to the one expectation that is so deeply rooted in society that it is not even really formulated anymore and that most people cannot believe exceptions are possible (“everyone is interested in sex, or if they are not, then it is because something bad happened to them and they certainly want to be fixed”), I find it easy not to conform to social expectations in other ways – like preferring to be alone or not being interested in a romantic relationship. Knowing I am asexual has given me the possibility to discover who I really am and the strength to be who I want to be.

source: The Asexual Visibility and Education Network

Sexual Orientation in Relation to Gender Identity

2011-06-07T02:20:00.020+03:00

What does it mean to say that someone is heterosexual or homosexual? Well, technically, it means that a person is either attracted to the same sex or opposite sex. This categorization has many underlying assumptions that I wish to address in this post.

From my understanding and the experiences of people in the LGBT community there are some complications that arise. Let's say a guy says: "I am heterosexual" does this mean he is attracted to girls, or does it mean he is attracted to the opposite sex?! The distinction might seem insignificant for most people, but in reality there is a difference. This difference is especially clear when we consider transgendered individuals.

Transgendered individuals are born in some biological sex, however, their biological sex does not match their gender identity, so they change their biological sex through sex-reassignment operations. So let's look at the question once again. A guy says: "I am heterosexual!", but at a later point of time he changes his biological sex to female. Would you expect this person to be attracted to men or women?! If we go by the definition, and say that person is heterosexual, this means that since now the person is a female, then she must be attracted to men.

But what if she is still attracted to women?! It is important to notice that both scenarios actually happen in real life. Some transgendered people experience a change in the gender they are attracted to, others are not affected.

Now in the case that the person remains attracted to women, it would seem that the person in question was not a heterosexual, but simply female-sexual. In other words, this person is attracted to women regardless of their own biological sex. However, there are also cases when people are heterosexuals or homosexuals, and when their biological sex changes, so does their preference for sexual attraction.

There are studies that show homosexual men inherit their attraction to men from their heterosexual mother, and that homosexual women inherit their attraction to women from their heterosexual father. Those studies imply that for some people their orientation is more of female-sexual or male-sexual rather than homo/heterosexual. And many transgendered people experienced this.

On the other hand, there are cases where a homosexual person goes under sex-reassignment operation, and the outcomes is that their preference changed to match that of their new gender!! In other words, they were attracted to the same sex before and after transitioning... And of course, there are cases where people change from monosexuals to bisexuals after the transition!!

Another complication is whether sexual orientation is defined by biological sex, or sexual expression (ie. masculinity and femininity). Is the person attracted to the sex, or the feminine/masculine "energy"?! For example, would a heterosexual man be attracted to an effeminate man or masculine woman more?! Again, people's reactions seem to vary. Some people seem to be attracted more to femininity and masculinity regardless of biological sex, while others seem more oriented toward biological sex regardless of the "energy" the person has. Others seem to be attracted to more complicated mixing of those phenomena.

For example, there are cases when guys are attracted to tom-boy girls (only?), and other cases when girls are attracted to effeminate guys (only?). So some people might experience cases where they are attracted to a sort of energy that is different from the biological sex they prefer! What would you call such individuals?! Would you go with the biological sex they prefer?! Or the sexual expression they prefer?!

And then you can look at this issue from the other way around. If a tom-boy girl is attracted to men, what does this make of her?! Homosexual or heterosexual?!

PS: monosexual means either homosexual or heterosexual (ie. attracted to one gender, but not both)

Alice in Wonderland (2010): The Best Love Story

2011-06-04T23:23:00.009+03:00

Alice in Wonderland, how did I forget this astonishing movie!! I still remember the first time I watched it, I was thinking "Wow!". And I am not wowed easily! It's a story about love... But not everyday love, but what I would definitely call "true love"! It was like the writer tapped into my head, read my mind, and made it into a movie!

Behind its fantasy and out-of-this-world narrative lies great truth and wisdom. I am not sure that everyone would understand the symbolism behind this great movie, but let's see what readers make of it. So, yeah dear readers, consider this a homework. Watch this movie and share your thoughts on what you understand from it.

Every scene has lots of wisdom in it, I can write a post about each and every scene in this movie. But I will not do that, maybe sometime in the future, but not in the near future. However, I will make one post that highlights the main story line, and the most prominent wisdom that can be gained from this movie. This post should be there next week hopefully.

The movie has a lot to say about love, politics, religion, life, and psychology. But I will focus on the topic of love, so as not to confuse readers. The main idea of the movie focuses on the post I made titled "The Choice Between Love and Fear", and in a more indirect manner the post titled: "About Love: Love and Curiosity". So, if you liked those posts, this homework is made especially for you!

So once again, watch this movie if you hadn't already and share your insight.

Download this movie: (torrent) (avi)

The Cage of Zeroes 2

2011-06-03T14:01:00.000+03:00

Come see my cage, once again!

Papa Roach in "Between Angels and Insects":

There's no money. There's no possessions,
only obsession. I don't need that shit.
Take my money, take my obsession.

I just want to be heard loud and clear are my words.
Coming from within, man tell them what you heard.
It's about a revolution in your heart and in your mind
you can find a conclusion. Lifestyle and obsession.
Diamond rings get you nothing but a life long lesson
And your pocketbooks stressing
You're a slave to the system working jobs that you hate
For that shit you don't need
It's too bad the world is based on greed.
Step back and see.
Stop thinking about yourself start thinking about..

There's no money there's no possession only
Obsession I don't need that shit
Take my money, take my possession, take my obsession
I don't need that shit

Because everything is nothing
And emptiness is in everything
This reality is really just a fucked up dream
With the flesh and the blood that you call your soul
Flip it inside out it's a big black hole.
Take your money burn it up like an asteroid.
Possessions: they are never gonna fill the void.
Take it away and learn the best lesson
The heart, the soul, the life, the passion.

Present yourself. Press your clothes. Comb your hair.
Clock in.
You just can't win just can't win
And the things you own own you (Full lyrics)

Tattoos On A Tainted Heart

2011-06-01T08:47:00.004+03:00

Cold in "Don't Belong":

My mind takes you to where you need to be
Cure for your heartbreak to take away the pain
I could describe each mistake for you
Tattoo it on my tainted heart

Well I won't ever tell the world
That I don't belong
Please don't ever tell the world
That I don't belong
That I don't belong

Can you still feel me or did I slip away?
A sick man, a monster, broken still today
I can't explain what happens to me
Caught in the game I've always starred
I could describe each mistake for you
Tattoo it on my tainted heart

Well I won't ever change my ways
And I can't be strong
That I don't belong

Please don't ever tell the world
That I don't belong (Full lyrics)

The Choice Between Love And Fear

2011-05-30T22:39:00.004+03:00

Everytime a person enters a relationship they have to make a choice between love and fear.

If you choose love, your highest priority will be to open up to your partner, get to know them very well, engage in honest meaningful discussions, and have experiences that will enrich your relationship. You will want to create an atmosphere of transparency and freedom. You will accept their choices and celebrate their desires. You will have to give them many freedoms, including among others, the freedom to hurt you emotionally. Love requires a huge investment of emotions, and the more emotions that you invest, the greater power your partner will have to hurt you emotionally. However, when you choose love, you set aside those concerns and make yourself completely available and in the moment without regard to the consequences that might entail.

On the other hand, if you choose fear, you highest priority will be to protect yourself. You will create an emotional barricade around yourself, distance yourself from the complexities of the relationship, and make sure that your partner stays inline. You will demand sexual and emotional fidelity, you feel insecure if your partner meets an interesting person, and you will do everything you can to make sure that your partner never leaves or do anything that might hurt you. You do not want your partner to see you for who you really are, because you are afraid they might not like the real you. You know that you have not invested much in making a solid relationship, that's why any person your partner might be interested in is an immediate threat because they might help them see what you have been holding back.

My opinion is that if someone enters a relationship with the expectation that they would never get emotionally hurt, they have no business being in a relationship in the first place!

It is important that each one of us asks themselves: Which one of those choices my past relationships exemplified? Do I choose love? Or do I choose fear? And, do I want to make those same choices or choose a different path? Some might not realize it, but love and fear just don't go together, sooner or later you have to make a choice!

PS: Inspired by this entry

The Problem of Mr./Mrs. Right

2011-05-29T01:59:00.004+03:00

Many people have an idea that is usually referred to as Mr. or Mrs. Right. While it is not necessarily a bad idea to have in your mind, many people use the idea in a way that is problematic for intimate relationships.

Some people have the idea of Mr. or Mrs. Right going in the back of their minds like a broken record that keeps repeating itself. Everytime they meet a person, they keep asking themselves: Is this Mr./Mrs. Right?! Oh, he likes this, he hates that... Wow he must be Mr./Mrs. Right... But oh wait, he does this, and he doesn't like that... Nah, he cannot be Mr./Mrs. Right!!

Almost all cultures have this idea of prince or princess charming that will come and be one's perfect match in every way possible. Some people might say that this is a fairy tale idea that does not happen in real life, but it is nonetheless something romantic. I disagree on both accounts. First, it can happen in real life. And second, it is not romantic... If anything it is anti-romantic. Allow me to explain.

First, the reason that prince or princess charming seems for many people to simply not exist, is because they build their images and ideas about Mr./Mrs. Right in the fantasy world. If you construct your idea of Mr./Mrs. Right in the fantasy world, then it is only logical that you will find them only in the fantasy world that they were constructed in. However, if you construct the idea of Mr./Mrs. Right in the real world, then such a person may exist. So it is simply a matter of making realistic expectations.

In the fantasy world, you will not find your prince or princess charming defecating in the bathroom. But if you're looking for someone who does not go to the bathroom, you're out of luck! My point is, humans are humans, and they have their flaws and charms, they have their ups and downs... And sometimes, what might seem like a flaw would indeed be something magnificent.

As a matter of fact, sometimes you might find people who are even better than Mr./Mrs. Right! And I am talking from first hand experience point of view. How?! Simple, any imaginary person is limited by your imagination. While imaginary people might not be limited in certain aspects, they are limited by your own perceptions. You are unlikely to have an interesting conversation with your imaginary friends, because they can only tell you what you already know. And they cannot teach you something about yourself, because they are part of what you know about yourself. And you are not going to experience anything new, because what you imagine is based on what you already experienced. Sometimes, real people are far more interesting and far more worthy of love than your imaginary friends.

Second point -which is actually the main point of this post- is that the idea of Mr./Mrs. Right devalues interpersonal relationships. That is why I consider it to be anti-romantic. Interpersonal relationships are valuable. But when people operate in the mindset of Mr./Mrs. Right, they would be constantly be making comparisons and judgements on the person they are in a relationship with. Relationships are valuable because they are a form of human interaction. They are an expression of our humanity.

This problem is usually evident when intimate relationships end. Many people would react in the following way: Oh darn, he did not turn out to be Mr./Mrs. Right, I wasted my time with this person and for what?! For nothing!!

If you ever find yourself reacting in that manner, then I think that you have a problem. You simply miss the whole point of a relationship. Relationships are valuable whether or not they are with Mr./Mrs. Right. It is human to form relationships with people. And relationships have value whether they last for five minutes or a lifetime. That's not to say they necessarily have equal value... But they have value nonetheless, and to deny that is a problem in and of itself.

Relationships need not and should not be an exercise in finding Mr./Mrs. Right. Talking about a subject of interest, sharing thoughts and feeling, sitting next to the person watching TV, having sexual intercourse, or any activity that you did, do, or will do is significant, and need to be appreciated regardless of when or how the relationship ended or started. And to deny any of that is -in my opinion- problematic and anti-romantic because it strips the relationship of its humanity.

And third point is how such an idea affects the relationship. For example, I personally hold honesty to be an important feature in relationships. But what would happen if the person you are involved with does not measure up to some of the characteristics of Mr./Mrs. Right?! This might not be a problem. However, if one is determined to find Mr./Mrs. Right no matter what, they might be determined to terminate that relationship. So, imagine now that you are with your partner, and he knows that your Mr./Mrs. Right has some characteristic that he does not have... For one, it might cause that person to feel inadequate and consequently jeopardize the relationship.

Moreover, think of how this affects the honesty of your partner. How would a person have the desire to be honest about themselves if they know that their honesty will cause them to lose you, or at least think less of them?! You would be putting your partner in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation. Where they have to make a choice between honesty and the continuity of the relationship.

In short, how could someone be encouraged to be honest and express themselves freely if they are constantly expected to measure up to some imaginary person that their partner made up?!

So, the person who is trying to find Mr./Mrs. Right is faced with the choice: Do I want a partner who is himself/herself all the time? Or do I want a partner who just seeks to imitate my imaginary friend called Mr./Mrs. Right? I hope that you agree with me that the former choice is the more sensible choice.

The Cage of Zeroes

2011-05-27T16:15:00.001+03:00

Slipknot in "Skin Ticket":

Zero and zero is nothing but zero
Cancer and people conspire together
Running and running and going forever
Collected and sampled, starving for zero

Come see my cage - built in my grain
Come see my cage - built in my grain
Come see my cage - built in my graveyard (Full lyrics)

A Different Kind of Commitment

2011-05-25T18:49:00.001+03:00

Open relationships involve a very different kind of commitment. One is essentially committing to conceive of the relationship in a non-comparative light; to value it for its intrinsic character rather than the way it compares to others; and to care about your partner, and how they treat you, in a non-possessive fashion. It involves the recognition that: What matters is your relationship, not any other one – even if the other involves your partner.

About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity

2011-05-24T04:07:00.001+03:00

Curiosity is the most important aspect of love.

To love someone is to think that they are interesting. And for them to be interesting to you, this means that they instill a feeling of curiosity. The desire that emerges when you get to know someone, that you want to know more about them. Understand their feelings, experiences, views, and thoughts. Or more generally, understand who they are. This desire in my opinion is the most definitive feature of the emotion of love. And this desire is the why and how a relationship is created and maintained.

Curiosity is the reason you make the time to sit with a person, have a conversation about all the different subject matters. It is why one would listen to another talking about their day, their passions, their opinions, or what have you. And it is through this process that intimacy grows and creates the experience of love.

And the satisfaction of this desire of curiosity and learning creates a very pleasant experience, which would reinforce the desire and be the basis of love.

Within this view, let's address how closed relationships and open relationships manifest their effects on the emotion of curiosity. While some people might interpret a statement of exclusivity from their partner as a positive commitment, I see it negatively. Because when we meet other people, our lives get enriched. In other words, we become more interesting in the sense then we have more things to talk about, share, and teach our partner. We as humans acquire knowledge and insight through our experiences, and the most profound class of experiences are interactions with other human beings. By limiting the depth of our experiences with other people, we are shutting the door for numerous experiences that will enrich our life, develop our personalities, and give us insight about ourselves, others, and life in general.

Consequently, the way I see things, someone who proclaims exclusivity is basically saving: "I have no intention of making myself more lovable, by the means of enriching my life." And in this sense, when your partner has no interest in enriching your life with the knowledge they give you, they are defying the very constituent of love, namely being worthy of curiosity, and consequently worthy of your time and love.

When you meet someone and find that they are interesting, that they have a unique perspective on life, and their mind works in a beautiful way; The more natural impulse is that you want that person to experience life more fully, because in that manner they are going to gain the insight and the experience to be more insightful and interesting. I find it extremely odd that one would think that someone is interesting, but not give them the tools to put their talent at work to come up with something that might as well be ground breaking!

Same idea applies when your partner asks you to be exclusive to them. They are basically saying: "I love you for a reason other than that I find you interesting." Which would consequently put into question whether or not they love you to begin with. Curiosity knows no bounds, and no matter how much you already know, you still have the desire to know more. If you have no desire to know more, then you have no curiosity, and when you are not curious, the emotion of love loses it's momentum.

And the idea of this deep connection between the emotion of love and curiosity is very evident in the general conception of 'true love'. Most people would argue that sex is not the most important aspect of love, but rather admiring and respecting the personality of the loved one. And this raises the question: How would it be that you admire and respect someone's personality if you don't think they are interesting? Or in other words, feel curious about them? So it seems to me that the people who profess that the closed-relationships model for relationships is compatible with the conception of 'true love' as being highly self-contradicting and self-refuting!

In this series:
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity
Next: About Love - Part 3: Love and Sexuality
Next: About Love - Part 4: True Love

Criticizing Anton Lavey and his Tradition

2011-05-23T02:04:00.008+03:00

Reverend John Allee is a Satanist who openly and relentlessly criticizes the tradition of Laveyian Satanism. Check this video titled "Modern Satanism: The Failed Religion". Personally, I disagree with Laveyian Satanism. However, I think that the criticisms that are presented in that particular video are misguided. They do misrepresent the Laveyian tradition, and it's message and goals.

I also don't agree with the title saying: "Modern Satanism: The Failed Religion". The reason I disagree is that it makes a non-sense generalization that "Laveyian Satanism" is "Modern Satanism"... Which is something completely misinformed! As a matter of fact, philosophical satanism and modern satanism mean roughly the same thing. So, I think a better title would be: "Laveyian Satanism: The Failed Religion".

I have way too many criticisms to the video apart from it's misleading title which I will not address in this entry. However, I think the video addresses some legitimate concerns, and in the spirit of openness to criticism and critical thinking, I think that is a good video to watch for satanists and non-satanists alike.

For those who don't know who Anton Lavey is; Lavey is a Modern Satanist who wrote a book titled "The Satanic Bible" in 1969, among few other Satanism related books. He also created what is called "The first church of Satan". Satanists had very diverse reactions to Lavey's actions, some applauded him, while the majority disagreed and opposed him. Personally, I disagree with many of the views that Lavey presents in his book. However, I think that presenting Satanism as a religion on par with other religions as a commendable achievement, with the reservation that Laveyian Satanism only represents the views of Lavey and his followers, but not Satanism in general.

Music - Part 3: Downtempo Favorites

2011-05-22T04:04:00.006+03:00

Downtempo is a category of electronic music characterized by a slower tempo (lower beats per minute rate). This type of music is made for listening and relaxation. Downtempo and in particular Ambient is all about the soundscapes. You can enjoy the soundscapes to the max when the music is flowing slowly and smoothly, without many complexities. I mostly prefer the psychedelic variants, because I am generally into psychedelic music!

Chill-out and Lounge: Relaxation music
Pleasure Lounge - Dreamworks
Sunlounger - Lost
Sunlounger - Sunny Tales
Sunlounger - Mediterranean Flower
Paul-Oakenfold - Southern Sun
The Junior D - Synth To Love
Buddha Bar - Ocean - Playa Blanca (mp3) (Full Video)
Buddha Bar - Ocean - Cetacea (mp3) (Full Video)

Ambient: The most relaxing genre of music!
Ambient Nights CD1 (Mixed by Hephaestion)

Psybient and Psychill: Psychedelic variants of Ambient and Chill-out
Shpongle - When Shall I Be Free?
Shpongle - The Stamen Of The Shaman
Shpongle - Exhalation
Shpongle - Around the World in a Tea Daze
Shpongle - A New Way to Say Hooray
Infected Mushroom - Elation Station
Infected Mushroom - Shakawkaw
Infected Mushroom - Elevation
Wylhelm - Trip Complete
Koala & Xentrix - Infinite Dream
Zi - Blue Home
Pink Floyd - Shine on You Crazy Diamond [Psychedelic Rock]

Dark Ambient: Horror Movies kind of music
Lustmord - Strange Attractor
Lustmord - Deep Calls to Deep
Desiderii Marginis - Forlorn Pt 2

In this series:
Music - Part 1: The Journey
Music - Part 2: Psychedelic Trance Favorites
Music - Part 3: Downtempo Favorites
Next: Music - Part 4: Favorites From All The Spectrum

Misunderstanding Generosity

2011-05-19T18:51:00.017+03:00

Generosity is a good quality in a person. However, many people misunderstand the concept of generosity, especially Arabs (or at least Jordanians, because that's where I observed the questionable behaviors). One such observation I notice it commonly when I take a cab in Jordan.

Everytime I get a cab to get home, the Taxi driver says: "5leeha 3laina" [translation: "It's on me"]. Now, this is a very ignorant response, because I would be put in a situation where I have to convince him to take my money!! How ridiculous is that?! Basically, I need to convince someone to take what's rightfully theirs!

This type of behavior is not only observed with Taxi drivers, but rather in many of the social aspects of life. Another very common example is when friends or acquaintances pay for something and then refuse when you offer to pay them back. Many many annoying habits that people have. And in my opinion, this is a social plague that needs to end. Giving up your rights has become a social norm!! That is indeed a scary observation, and it affects society in many aspects. Giving up your rights is not an act of "politeness" or "generosity".

And this form of misleading social norms influences the political arena. People are shy to make demands, ask for their rights, or require fairness. Someone who is not afraid to demand his rights, or requesting to be treated fairly and respectfully is seen as an obnoxious person, rather than a hero in the difficult times when rights are abused and taken away without reservation.

This madness has got to stop!

PS: Inspired by this entry

Rude Awakening: Wake The Fuck Up

2011-05-19T01:47:00.002+03:00

Papa Roach in "Stop Looking Start Seeing":

Hit or miss, fuck or fight
Put yourself in my shoes
Would you stand up for your rights
Line em up and knock em down
I'm not running scared tonight

I have climbed these walls before
And I'm not scared anymore
There's a time to lead and a time to follow
Because I won't take this anymore (these walls)
I've climbed these walls before (these walls)
There's a time to lead and a time to follow (these walls)

I see the walls closing in
And I feel I'm in danger
My enemy is not alone
In the mirror, there's a stranger
As I tried to break out
My panic led to fear
Hopeless, I am alone
I'm afraid the end is near

Stop looking
Start seeing NOW (Full lyrics)

Papa Roach in "Blanket of Fear":

I am awake under this blanket of fear
and I must say,
None of the people I see belong here
Now everyone's asleep
I am awake and I am dreaming
I believe it's time for the rude awakening

So hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality
Hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality

I believe the only thing we have to fear is
Fear itself, and the man behind the curtain
I heard him say: dreamers are becoming an endangered species
And I'm aware of the rude awakening (Full lyrics)

Papa Roach in "Tyranny of Normality":

Our culture has become complacent, and has no desire,
and the ethical slaughter of
truth needs to be retired, retired

It's the tyranny of normality
It's the tyranny of normality

Since the death of outrage, I want to turn a new page!!
I mourn the death of our age,
the obituary is on the front page (Full lyrics)

Rage MORE!

Adam and Eve - The First Sinners

2011-05-17T18:22:00.004+03:00

According to the mythology of the Judeo-Christian tradition, Adam and Eve were created by God. And they were created in a state where they lacked the capacity to know of good and evil. However, there was a tree, called "The tree of knowledge of good and evil". A tree which if they eat from they will get the capacity to know of good and evil. However, God forbids Adam and Eve to eat from that tree.

But Satan, manifested as a serpent, lures Eve to taste the forbidden fruit. Eve falls into the temptation and prompted Adam to do the same. And so they both ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but when God discovers that both Adam and Eve have eaten from the forbidden tree, he punishes them for defying his will. They have sinned, and needed to be punished!!

But Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil... How could they have sinned if they didn't have the concept of good and evil?! How would Adam and Eve know that defying God's will is an act of evil?! The concept simply isn't present in their mind!

While their actions might be interpreted as evil and sinful, but they clearly had no malice intent... Again, because they had no concept of good and evil! So the question begs itself: Why would God punish Adam and Eve -and all of their descendants- when they clearly lacked the awareness of the significance of their actions?!

Biblical References:
Old Testament: (PDF)
Genesis 2:16-17 [God forbids Adam to eat from the tree]
Genesis 3:1-5 [Satan convinces Eve to eat from the tree]
Genesis 3:7-11 [What happened when Man has eaten from the tree]
Genesis 3:16-23 [The punishment of Adam and Eve]

What Would Jesus NOT Do?

2011-05-17T02:47:00.001+03:00

Jesus, the son of God, who also happens to be God himself has come to earth! What a miraculous wonder. One has to wonder what went through God's mind while planning for this miraculous event, but wonder no more, this is a sneak peek into Jesus planing his visit to earth.

Question For Readers

2011-05-14T21:27:00.002+03:00

Which scenario makes more sense to you? Which scenario you think you most likely engage in practice?

1- Loving someone, and building a relationship with them using that love as a solid foundation for the relationship.

OR

2- Having a relationship with someone, and building the love on the solid foundation of the relationship.

Please share your thoughts. I am hoping that this question will trigger some sort of discussion.

Who Are You?

2011-05-12T13:54:00.000+03:00

"To be yourself in a world that does its best to make you like everybody else, is the hardest battle to fight, and to keep fighting."

E. E. Cummings

Keep fighting... For your own sake!

The Theory and Psychology of Honor

2011-05-11T03:01:00.006+03:00

When talking about Honor there are various concepts that need to be identified: Valuables, Honor, Reputation, Honor Codes, and Honor Systems.

Lets make a rough definition of each of those concepts:
Valuables: It is a set of material possessions and conceptual values that are considered to be valuable for the individual, and an important asset to their survival value. The most common examples of valuables: Land ownership, Houses and real-estate, family members, reputation, and livelihood.
Honor: Acts of aggression to anyone who takes or threatens those valuables. Common examples of honor acts include: A house owner who shoots a burglar who broke into his house, a person who revenges the murder of a family member, a husband who kills his wife for sexual infidelity, a person who kills another in self-defense.
Reputation: The knowledge of people that a person would act in a specific manner in response to a specific situation. Examples include: A person having a reputation of accepting bribes when offered one, a person having a reputation of engaging in violent fights when insulted, a person having a reputation for enacting revenge upon anyone who crosses his path.
Honor codes: The set of reputations of specific action tendencies in matters of Honor of a particular individual. Examples include: Action tendency to killing burglars if they break into your house, action tendency to kill a cheating wife, action tendency to protect your family in dangerous situations. To be more elaborate, honor code is not only the action tendency, but it also includes a declaration of those action tendencies. So in the example of killing the cheating wife, honor code is established when the husband lets his wife know beforehand that cheating will result in death, as this is the part where the reputation of action tendencies is created.
Honor system: The collection of honor codes of various individuals and the system that results from the various interactions of the individuals and their honor codes. Those individuals might have common interests, or conflicting interests depending on the specific situations.

Honor and reputation are very important concepts in terms of survival. It is the mechanism that creates penalty for attempting to take or threaten an individual's valuables. An individual's tendency to act aggressively makes him capable of protecting his own, and other people's knowledge of someone's capacity for hostile retaliation acts as proactive measure against being threatened in the first place.

Any serious discussion about Honor must address the issue of reputation. So, first I will address the topic of reputation.

The theoretical basis of Reputation using Game Theory

Game Theory provides an understanding of the mechanisms through which reputation emerges. Economists, evolution theorists, and evolutionary psychology all use game theory for analytical models in those theories. I will provide few examples to illustrate this point.

Example 1:
First, lets take an example in Economics. This is a popular textbook example, and many people might be familiar with it. In this example, we hypothesize a situation where one company has a monopoly for a particular product or service. Assume that the monopolist has yearly income of 3 million dollars. One company is considering entering the market. At this point, the monopolist has two alternative strategies: Either to fight the entrant, by driving prices very low, at the risk of making no profit for that year. If the monopolist chooses this strategy, the entrant company will suffer losses of 1 million dollars, and will be forced to exit the market. The other strategy is to allow the competitor to enter the market, and sell products at a competitive price, such that the both companies would make 1 million dollars per year.

	Monopolist	Entrant
Not Enter	3mil$ profit	0$ profit
Enter with Fight	0$ profit	1mil$ loss
Enter without Fight	1mil$ profit	1mil$ profit

One thing the monopolist might do, is to announce to all companies that intend to enter the market that they will fight. Any competitor who actually believes that the monopolist will fight would not enter the market, because they know that the end result will be a net loss of 1 million dollars.

But some competing company might think: "Yes, they say they will fight, but that's just a scare tactic. However, if we actually enter the market, they will not fight us, because they want to create profit, so they will not fight because making one million dollars in profit is better than no profit at all!". So, lets say this company decides to enter the market.

What should the monopolist do? If they decide to fight, in the short-term, they will suffer because they are not making any profits. However, in the consequent years they will still make good profits, better than those they would have if they allowed competition to enter the market.

Another concern is: What if in the next year some other company decided to enter the market, should the monopolist fight them as well? Again, fighting in the short-term seems undesirable. But one thing is left out of the equation, which is reputation. Once the monopolist had enacted the threats they made, it is much less likely that another company will try to enter the market. The monopolist had made an example of that previous company, and anyone who suggests that the monopolist was bluffing will be forced to reconsider. The monopolist is said to have created a reputation of fighting competitors.

Example 2:
The prisoner's dilemma is another example of emergent behavior where reputation plays an important role. The prisoner's dilemma hypothesizes a situation where two suspects are held for interrogation. The police does not have enough evidence to convict them. Both suspects are offered the same deal: If you rat out the other suspect and they stay silent, you will walk out free, and the other suspect will get a five-years sentence. If you stay silent, and the other suspect rats, you will get a five years sentence, and the other suspect will walk out free. If you both rat each other, each of you will get a three-years sentence. If you both stay silent, you will be sentenced for one-year for a minor offense.

	Prisoner A silent	Prisoner A rat
Prisoner B silent	1 year for both	5 years for B
Prisoner B rat	5 years for A	3 years for both

The trick in this scenario is that both suspects have motive to rat the other person out. Regardless of what the other person does, you get the better part of the deal by being a rat. If the other person was a loyal and remained silent, you will go free by ratting him. If the other person was a rat, you will get a three-years sentence instead of five-years sentence.

However, the dilemma is that when both of them chooses to rat, they will both get three-years sentence, when it would have been better if they both could stick to staying silent, and just serve one-year sentence. The idea here is that by both being self-interested and uncooperative they get the worse part of the deal (3-years), although if they were cooperative and trusting they would have got a better deal (1-year).

So now, if we let reputation enter the picture. If both suspects had a reliable reputation of being cooperative and not rats, each one of them can trust the other person to stay silent. And none of them would rat the other person, because this will break their good reputation, and if a similar occasion arises their bad reputation will get them the bad part of the deal.

Evolution of Honor as a Psychological Mechanism

It is important to understand that evolution is a slow process, it takes ages to develop. And evolution is also a heuristic process, in the sense that it does not provide optimal solutions in minimal time, but rather depends on random occurrences, epiphenomena, indirect solutions to problems. In evolutionary psychology, psychological mechanisms are processes that arise to help solve certain problems that humans faced for prolonged periods of time. However, psychological mechanisms can be indirect solutions to problems. For example, sexual pleasure and sexual desire are epiphenomena that drive individuals to engage in acts that will likely cause them to procreate. So sexual desire is a psychological mechanism using which nature ensures that individuals procreate. Loving your child is a psychological mechanism using which nature ensures that parents look out for their children after they are born. And finally Honor is a psychological mechanism that ensures that individuals fend off for the things that improve their chances of survival.

However, as mentioned earlier, evolution is heuristic. For example, from procreation point of view, a sterile man or woman has no value for sexual desire. But the thing is, when people experience sexual desire, they are not directly thinking of procreation, and that's what it means to call it a psychological mechanism; Procreation is a by-product of sexual desire, but the psychological experience itself is not defined by procreation.

So when we apply what we discussed to the concept of Honor, we see that Honor is a psychological mechanism that solved problems for humans in the past. One problem is parental investment. From a parent's perspective, he or she is investing time and effort to support the immediate family. However, this behavior is usually motivated by a desire to invest in one's own offspring. You children carry your genes so protecting them has survival value. However, if you were investing time and effort in some child, it is important to be sure that they carry your genes. When it comes to women, this is typically not a problem, because when she gets pregnant the child is without doubt her own. However, when it comes to men, things become less obvious. For this purpose, sexual fidelity becomes valuable. For the most part of human evolution, the technology of DNA tests was not available, and consequently the only way to be sure was to require sexual fidelity.

In this example of sexual infidelity, one question arises: What is the best strategy to handle infidelity? Several answers come to mind: Homicide is arguably one solution. Abandonment, abortion, DNA testing also seem like viable solutions. It is important to note that DNA testing is a recent technology, so human evolution has not yet adapted to the existence of this technology, and so our psychological mechanisms are unlikely to factor this option in. Homicide is a very aggressive solution, yet it is commonly used. This is for several reasons. For one, severe aggression imposes a high cost on sexual infidelity. Another reason is to create reputation and precedence which would deter future partners from sexual infidelity.

Just as the case of a sterile person having sexual desire seems misplaced. Honor can at times be misplaced, and sometimes even go plainly wrong. In the case of a husband killing his wife, some anomalies exist. What if the woman was sterile? What if she was using birth control? What if she was menstruating? These are situations where sexual infidelity might seem inconsequential, yet Honor is provoked because it is a psychological mechanism that is experienced independently of its purpose.

There are cases where Honor has obviously gone wrong. The most obvious example is suicide practiced by the Samurai as a form of Honor. This form of Honor is very counter-productive and provides no survival value, quite the contrary! There are other cases which are not as obvious. For example, Honor crimes committed against female family members. While in the case of a husband killing his wife, the reasons are pretty much obvious. It is much less obvious why a father would be concerned about sexual infidelity, premarital sex, or illegitimate children of his daughter. From an evolutionary perspective, immediate family members protect each other because they share some genes. Killing one's offspring seems like a waste of the time and resources invested in the upbringing of the offspring. However, this kind of behavior is not as clear as the case of Samurai suicide. At this point, the concept of Honor systems plays a major role.

Emergence of Honor Systems

Individuals in a society interact, and interactions lead to divergence of interests and creation of conflicts. Lets take the example of a father killing his daughter for premarital sex as a case study. In this scenario, it is clear that a parent has no immediate reason make such response. In fact, at first glance it might seem like a counter-productive behavior. However, once we realize that this parent lives in a society where individuals have their own agendas and honor codes the picture changes. The parent has invested time and effort in the upbringing of his offspring. But this interest does not end at his immediate offspring, but also in the offspring of his offspring. So given that men have developed psychological mechanisms that makes them avoid non-virgin women as partners, conflict of interests arises. Even though the parent may not have immediate concern of who the father of his grandchildren is, he is still concerned that his daughter procreate because a dead-end offspring has very little survival value. As a consequence, a need to protect the investment in his offspring arises. This example shows how Honor codes of the individuals is influenced by the Honor codes of other individuals who they interact with. The result of this process is an Honor system.

It becomes obvious that interactions between members of a society shapes and reshapes their conception of Valuables and the Honor codes that they have, and adapts to situational circumstances that the individual faces during their course of life.

Emergence of Law and Order

As societies progress, Honor systems become unwritten laws that societies abide in their day to day life to avoid aggressive conflict. However, as the social order among these societies keeps advancing, those unwritten laws usually transform into written laws that are used to keep order in those societies. While it might be a normal occurrence in some societies to shoot thieves that break into one's house to protect one's property, this type of transgression is now customarily handled by the police and courts, to settle those sorts of conflicts.

In a civilization of law and order, it is usually discouraged that people take the law into their own hands and seek retribution. However, there are occasions when the law does not satisfy the needs of the individuals, and consequently, some individuals become determined to enact retribution outside the framework of the law.

Raped And Abused

2011-05-10T20:59:00.001+03:00

Mortal Love in "All the Beauty":

All the beauty I see
All the beauty I feel
All the beauty I hear
All the beauty in the world
Ain't nothing compared to you

I adore you everyday
I love you everyday
I got all the time in the world
To wait for you

I'm in love with you (Lyrics)

PS: This post is a spin-off of Sado Maso 1/2.

Music - Part 2: Psychedelic Trance Favorites

2011-05-09T02:39:00.007+03:00

Trance music has gained lots of popularity in recent years, especially in Europe. There are many divisions of trance. Some above-ground circles that focus on Vocal Trance and Uplifting Trance. However, my taste goes more to the wondrous world of psychedelic trance, which is mostly considered to be underground music although it has so much influence on the above-ground scene.

Psychedelic Trance is mostly music-only without lyrics. It is more obscure in its nature, more emotional in the sense that it has strong capacity to cause mood swings, and more trippy in the sense that it stirs your imaginations and causes your mind to experience 'mental trips' (journey through imagination land).

The psychedelic trance has three main styles:
1- Goa trance
2- Full-on Psytrance
3- Dark Psytrance

I have compiled a list of some of my favorites.

First, let's explore Goa Trance. Music exported from India in a coastal city named Goa, a city where there is a party every night whole year long! This is the most accessible style of Psychedelic Trance. Very easy to get sucked into the mood. It makes it easy for someone who never listened to Psychedelic Music to get what this sort of music is all about.

1- Electric Universe: Best Goa Trance I know of! No contest! Just let your mind wander, and ass shake... That's all you need to enjoy their music.
1a- Radio S.P.A.C.E: That's the song that made me fall in love with this group. It literally gave me the feeling that I am dancing in deep space, with the darkness lit up by little stars in the skies all around. Never gonna forget that feeling! (mp3)
1b- Freakuencies: Music is made up of frequencies, but this one is not made of ordinary frequencies, it is made of freakuencies. (mp3)
1c- Silence In Action: (mp3)
1d- Visiting Venus: Must hear! (mp3)
1e- Orange Night: Must hear! (mp3)

2- Cosmosis:
2a- Afterglow: (mp3)
2b- Psychofunk: (mp3)
2c- In Yer Face: Something a little bit more upbeat, a little more energetic. (mp3)

3- Random Picks: Okay, no specific artists... Just whatever feels right! [Using Artist - Title convention.]
3a- Astral Projection - Mahadeva: Another energetic track, where things go a bit faster than usual. (mp3)
3b- Curly Whirly Spirits - Stoned Again: This one is really screwed up, prepare to become insanely psychotic! (mp3)
3c- Man With No Name - Lunar Cycle: Another psychosis inducing track! (mp3)
3d- Hallucinogen - L.S.D.: Mind bending! (mp3)

Let's go now to the Full-on psytrance category. This genre of music is intense and full of energy, hence the name "Full-on"!! Born on the dance-floors of Israeli nightclubs in late 90's, and ever since became a a widely recognized form of trance.

4- Infected Mushroom: One of the leaders of Full-on psytrance. Their music is controversial with lots of ups and downs, however their brave attitude in experimenting with new sounds has guaranteed them a place in the spotlight. Although technically, they are considered Full-on Psy, they do not hesitate to go to the dark side, which gives them a refreshing mixture between the light and darkness.
4a- Ballerium: This is one of their very eccentric productions. It is not exactly psytrance, it has dark psychill influences (which has a slow tempo). I have to admit that it is not an easy song, especially for those who are new to the scene. It is one of my all time favorites. (mp3)
4b- Deeply Disturbed: One of the most popular songs among fans. I like this song, but I wouldn't count it as one of the best. (mp3)
4c- Baby Killer: This song has influences from Dark Psytrance. In other words, it blows your brains out!! (mp3)
4d- Cities of The Future: One of my absolute favorites of the vocal song for Infected Mushroom. I love it mostly for the brilliant lyrics. (mp3)
4e- Becoming Insane: Another favorite of vocal songs. (mp3)

5- 1200 Micrograms: Another full-on psytrance group. Very unique style, with large diversity among their different songs and albums. Their music is full of energy, it won't give you a minute to take a breath!!
5a- Let's Get This Party Started: One the most straightforward songs that they produced. Straight to the point, no games, no bluffing, just pure energy to start your journey of partying! (mp3)
5b- God of Rock: Another straightforward production that will keep you dancing through the night. (mp3)
5c- Stoned Henge: A trippy production that lets your mind wander. (mp3)
5d- Numbers are Alive: 24 minutes of pure mind-blowing music. (mp3)
5e- DMT: Take the red pill and have a trip with Neo inside the Matrix. (mp3)

6- Astrix: One of the big names in the Full-on psytrance scene.
6a- Sex Style: Sexy and funky, these are the words I'd use to describe this song! Will definitely hype the dance-floor. (mp3)
6b- Underbeat: Must hear! (mp3)
6c- Beyond the Senses: This song has a very tribal feel to it, it always makes feel like I am living with a tribe in the Amazon or something! (mp3)

Finally, we are going to the dark side... Dark Psytrance just like the Full-on Psytrance is intense, but it is even pushier. Simply put, this music is a mindfuck! Beware, not for amateurs.

7- Parasense: A music act from Moscow. My favorite of this style.
7a- Vesna: (mp3)
7b- Linda rmx: This one has vocals in Russian (I think). (mp3)
7c- Ritual of Drugs: (mp3)
7d- Amazon Travel: Something to eradicate all thought from your mind! (mp3)

8- Random Picks:
8a- Bizzare Contact - Ice Age (psytekk): If you don't remember your own name after listening to this song, don't be alarmed... It happens! (mp3)
8b- Bizzare Contact VS Electro Sun - Eye Contact (psytekk): Another song that can make you forget your name! (mp3)
8c- Cujorious One - The Art Of Mindfucking: Who said mindfucking isn't an art?! (mp3)

Okay, this was a long post with many recommendations. Every song is unique in it's own right, and there is lots of diversities in those songs. Hope you enjoyed at least some of the recommendation I made. However, one good way to listen to psychedelic trance is to have a good collection and let your player shuffle through them, because it takes some time to get into the mood, and hence listening one song at a time might not give required effect.

In this series:
Music - Part 1: The Journey
Music - Part 2: Psychedelic Trance Favorites
Music - Part 3: Downtempo Favorites
Next: Music - Part 4: Favorites From All The Spectrum

Music - Part 1: The Journey

2011-05-05T10:49:00.012+03:00

My journey with music started out early, around the age of 7. I started out with English pop music, more specifically bands of five. Backstreet Boys, Aqua, Five, and Spice Girls are all the big names that quickly come to mind. So many good memories. However, around the age of 13 I was introduced to rap, with Eminem's album Marshal Mathers LP. It was the very first time I listened to something that changed my mind and convinced me to modify my taste in music. My journey with rap was relatively short, after around one year, I was introduced to alternative rock. However, my taste did not change dramatically. I listened to both rap and alternative rock for around two years, and my taste in music changed slowly, until I was about 16 when I started listening exclusively to rock, and my taste in rock started expanding beyond alternative rock, to include many of the other styles in the rock and metal category.

I have to say, rock is great, it stuck with me for a very long time... I still listen to rock/metal although not as exclusively as I used to.

After I entered university, my taste started expanding once more. I started experimenting with non-vocal songs, classical music was my first experiment, and I loved it. I Listened mostly to Beethoven, and a little bit to other classical artists. Later on, I started experimenting with instrumental music. Guitar, Oud, and Piano were my earliest choices... I loved them too. I experimented with all of those types of music, but rock/metal remained my number one choice. And I also started listening to a handpicked selection of Arabic music. Fairouz was pretty much my number one choice. I also liked: Lena Chamamyan, Dina Hayek, and Ziad Rahbani. And to a lesser extent: Ruby (esp. Enta Aref Laih), Haifa Wehbi, and Nancy Ajram.

Until one day it happened. Around the age of 20, I listened to psychedelic trance, and fell in love instantly. There is simply nothing like it, nothing as good, nothing as beautiful. That was my second dramatic change in taste of music. I started listening to psychedelic trance exclusively, but this did not stay for long. Psychedelic trance opened my mind to a whole new world of music. Psychedelic trance, simply put, changed my idea of what music is, the most dramatic shift in taste that I ever experienced. For this reason, I had to check out other genres given my radically changed understanding of music. Uplifting trance (the most common form of trance) hit a major chord. Jazz was also lovely. After I started listening to Jazz, I started re-experimenting with instrumental music, but this time my choices were Saxophone and Violin. I also love downtempo genres such as Chill-out, Ambient, and Lounge.

On this day, psychedelic trance remains my number one choice, with a more generalized taste for instrumental and electronic music. And I still love to listen to rock/metal because I love their lyrics and energy.

In this series:
Music - Part 1: The Journey
Music - Part 2: Psychedelic Trance Favorites
Music - Part 3: Downtempo Favorites
Next: Music - Part 4: Favorites From All The Spectrum

The Intimacy Process Model

2011-05-04T03:18:00.007+03:00

In psychology, one of the important theories is what is referred to as the "intimacy process model". Intimacy is a sense of closeness, familiarity, and affect toward another person. Intimacy plays a major role in interpersonal relationships as it is the basis of friendship and love. In this post we will look at the intimacy process model to have a better understanding of how intimacy is cultivated in interpersonal relationships.

To help put things in perspective, let's look at a diagram that sums up what this model suggests:

In this diagram, 'A' is someone who is disclosing information about him/herself to 'B' (I'll use the male pronoun for 'A' from this point on). Any kind of information that a person counts as significant about themselves counts. 'A' could be talking about a book they read, a movie they watched, an experience they had. 'A' could be talking about their feelings towards 'B' or someone else. Or he might be discussing some of their hopes, dreams, fears, ...etc.

Once 'A' shared some personal information, he is going to observe 'B''s reaction. 'A' is looking for confirmation from 'B'. The idea is that the feelings of intimacy that 'A' experiences towards 'B' will grow, insofar that 'A' feels understood, validated, and cared for. 'A' will be asking himself questions like: Does this person get me? Can he/she relate to what I am talking about? Does this person like me more or less now that I shared this information? Does this person's reaction show them to have interest in me?

'B''s reaction depends on two things, his/her interpretation of the information being revealed, and his/her own set of motives, needs, goals, and fears. 'B''s interpretation will depend on many factors, including -among others-: Past experiences, prejudices and biases, goals and dreams, fears, cultural background, sometimes even state of mind (eg. angry, excited, aroused).

Once 'B' has responded to 'A', now the same process of interpretation is going to happen. 'A' will interpret 'B''s reaction, and depending on how much his interpretation of 'B''s reaction is perceived as a sign of understanding, validation, and caring intimacy will grow. And of course, the cycle continues as long as 'A' keeps revealing information about themselves during the course of the relationship.

Needless to say, intimacy needs some balance. In other words, sharing and revealing of information should be a two way road. Both persons need to disclose something about themselves during conversations that take place in the course of the relationship. Lack of disclosure about personal information is usually perceived as lack of interest.

This process is significant throughout all the interactions between people, right from the moment you first meet a person, and all through the later stages of the relationship. It is important to be aware of how intimacy works, and how it is affecting your relationships with others.

Smile Empty Soul

2011-05-02T18:16:00.006+03:00

Smile Empty Soul in "Nowhere Kids":

In the land of dirt and plaster
Lies an army of a thousand nowhere kids
Losing ground and falling faster
Into a life that no one should have to live

We are the people that you hate
We are the bastards that you created
A generation with no place
A generation of all your sons and daughters

Behind the fake family image
Behind the smile of a thousand moms and dads
Inside the cage that we've been given
I see an image of the future that we don't have

We are the people that you hate
The fucking bastards that you created
A generation with no place
A generation of all your sons and daughters

And what did you expect ... a perfect child
Raised by TV sets ... abandoned every mile
We never get respect ... never a fair trial
No one gives a shit ... as long as we smile... smile...smile (Full lyrics)

Remember kids, everything will be alright, as long as you smile! :)

Personal Experience: "Buy Me a New One", Said I

2011-04-29T22:50:00.008+03:00

In this post I want to share a personal experience with some friends in my childhood. For some period of time in my childhood I had the problem of not being able to say "No!". And the friends that I had at the time took advantage of that as far as they could.

Of course the story does not cover every aspect of the friendship, but it does shade some light on how things were going in general. So one of the things that used to piss me off is that they would borrow stuff and never return them back. They would borrow something and promise to return it next week. A week turns into weeks, and weeks turn into months, and then they would mysteriously lose the item. And things have been like that for a few years.

At some point, I decided that enough is enough, and that things need to change. So, I stopped lending them stuff. Everytime they ask for something, I would just refuse to give it to them. However, one of my friends decided to be persistent one time. He wanted to borrow a cassette from my cassette collection, and he just won't take no for an answer. So, I finally gave it to him on the condition that he returns it a week later. A week passed and he did not return the cassette yet, so I decided to keep nagging him until he returns it. So, everytime we meet I would ask him to return the cassette, and he'd say he's not done with it, he needs another week. Same old way that it used to be. And as usual after like two months he apologizes and tells me that he lost the cassette and couldn't find it.

Of course, this was something very predictable and I had my comeback prepared. So I told him: "Okay, no problem, it happens... People lose stuff sometimes... Buy me a new one!". I could see it in his eyes, he didn't see that one coming!! I instantly went back home, and told him that next time I see him, he must have the replacement cassette. And from that day on, everytime my friends would call and ask me to play, I tell them that I won't do it until I get my cassette back.

Few weeks later, my friends decided to make some kind of intervention. They told me that they wanted to talk to me in a very urgent and persistent fashion. Basically the whole group was there to discuss why I don't go out with them anymore. I explained to them the situation, and told them that the only way that the situation could be resolved is by giving me a replacement cassette. I told them that I don't care who gets me the cassette, even if the guy who lost it refuses to buy a new one, any one of them can buy me a new one and the situation would be resolved. No-one volunteered to do that, although it was a reasonable demand since each one of them has on multiple occasions borrowed something from me and never returned it back.

Instead they apologized and made every possible accusation or argument so as not to do that. Some took the moral high-ground and claimed that ending a friendship over a cassette is wrong, because friendship transcends material possessions. Others complained that it is unfair that I punish them for someone else's mistake. Some said I am overreacting. In short, they were all ready to do anything and everything to keep the friendship, except buy me a replacement cassette!!

Needless to say, I never got my cassette back, and I never played or hung out with them ever again.

The moral of the story is not to stand up for yourself. Of course, you should stand up for yourself. And I did that, and I am happy I did. But that's not why I am telling this story. The thing is that I was not always someone who couldn't say no. Certainly not when I met those guys. Quite the opposite I used to be someone who almost never shared anything, or give anyone anything. Our friendship was not always about me being an over-sharer, at least that's not how it started.

The problem is that when I became an over-sharing person, the friendship itself changed. What started out as healthy friendship of fun and games, transformed into a bottomless desire to take and never give back. They became so used to the fact that they can take stuff and never give them back, to the point that this became something they take for granted. It became an unchangeable aspect of the friendship.

So, the point is: Be nice and generous to people, but not to the point that your niceness or generosity is the only reason they are with you. And if you see some unacceptable behavior in your relationship, deal with it promptly before it becomes a habit that is difficult to break.

PS: Inspired by this entry

The Untold Love Stories

2011-04-28T01:22:00.003+03:00

One of my favorite songs ever, in full this time! [MP3 Download]

Matchbox 20 in "Hand me down":

Someday they'll find your small town world
On a big town avenue
Gonna make you like the way they talk
When they're talking to you
Gonna make you break out of your shell
Cuz they tell you to
Gonna make you like the way they lie
Better than the truth
They'll tell you everything
You wanted someone else to say
They're gonna break your heart, yeah

From what I've seen
You're just one more hand me down
Cuz no one's tried to give you
What you need
So lay all your troubles down
I am with you now

Somebody oughta take you in
Try to make you love again
Try to make you like the way they feel
When they're under your skin
Never once do you think that they would lie
When they're holding you
Then you wonder why they haven't called
When they said they'd call you
You'll start to wonder
If you're ever gonna make it by
You'll start to think
You were born blind

From what I've seen
You're just one more hand me down
Cuz no one's tried to give you
What you need
So lay all your troubles down
I am with you now

I'm here for the hard times
The straight to your heart times
When living ain't easy
You can stand up against me
And maybe rely on me
And cry on me, yeah

Oh no, no, no

Someday they'll open up your world
Shake you down to the drawing board
Do their best to change you
They still can't erase you

From what I've seen
You're just one more hand me down
Cuz no one's tried to give you
What you need
So lay all your troubles down
I am with you now

Lay them down on me
You're just one more hand me down
And all those nights don't give you
What you need
So lay all your troubles down
On me (mp3)

Take a Pill in a Lonely World

2011-04-27T04:01:00.008+03:00

Limp Bizkit in "Lonely World":

Another day another night inside a lonely world
Another game another fight inside a lonely world
Another wrong another right inside a lonely world
Such a lonely world, such a lonely world

No matter how hard i can try inside a lonely world
No one can hear me when i cry inside a lonely world
I'll never know the reasons why inside a lonely world
Such a lonely world (such a lonely world) (Full lyrics)

It is amazing how in a connected world full of people, you can still feel lonely. You could be not alone, be in a place with a hundred other people, yet you can feel lonely; You know the feeling?!

When people so consumed by the day-to-day activities and in a rush they don't bother to look beneath the surface...

Limp Bizkit in the same song:

Still i never want it all, and i never want it now
I just want to cruise, if i loose then i'll figure it out

Take a pill! Take a hike! Do whatever, just chill out and look around!

Could Love Be a Sexual Orientation?

2011-04-25T03:14:00.006+03:00

During some of my curious thoughts, I stumbled across what might be a mysterious question. I think that some people might be confused by the question to the point of dismissing the question as meaningless. However, it is a question that I personally find legitimate.

Could love be a sexual orientation? To elaborate, regularly people love a subset of those who they are sexually attracted to. For example, a straight man would find it difficult to fall in love with another man, simply because they are not sexually attracted to men. Same logic applies to all monosexual people (ie. heterosexual/homosexual). In this case, we find that sexual attraction or orientation is independent of love. On the other hand, love seems to be conditioned and controlled by sexual orientation. Simply put, sexual orientation leads and love follows.

The question is: Is this something that is definite for all human beings?! Is conceivable that at least for some people love leads and sexual attraction/orientation follows?!

Actually, my question is far more complicated than that, but because I cannot put words to explain my thoughts I'll leave it at this; Maybe I'll elaborate when I sort out my thoughts on the topic. The very thought of this question caused me lots of confusion!!

Just to avoid any possible confusion, this post does not address bisexuality. For the case of bisexual people, they have a sexual attraction to both sexes, which enables them to love people of both sexes. However, for the purposes of this post -and as far as I understand bisexuality- love is still in a very real sense conditioned by sexual orientation in that case.

Update: Looking around the internet, I found the type of sexuality that mostly resembles what I had in mind when I made this post. It is called Demisexuality. It does not exactly reflect my idea, but it's very similar in many aspects.

Demisexuality is considered to fall under the general category of asexuality. Demisexuals don't feel sexual attraction to people of either sex, until they form a strong emotional connection with them. However, what I have in mind generally falls under sexuality, rather than asexuality. However, the turn-ons and turn-offs are more controlled by personality cues, rather than physical appearance cues.

One True Religion

2011-04-24T00:56:00.000+03:00

Going Deep With KassemG

2011-04-21T08:36:00.002+03:00

This is the most hilarious thing I ever found on YouTube! This guy called Kassem G. who is apparently a comedian does interviews with porn stars. The interviews are made with a tongue-in-cheek style, very hilarious!

These are some videos that I found:
CHERRY FERRETTI GOES DEEP
EVA ELLINGTON GOES DEEP
VIOLET MONROE GOES DEEP
DANA DeARMOND GOES DEEP
KIMBER JAMES GOES DEEP
STELLA MARIE GOES DEEP
FAYE & DANE GO DEEP
GOING DEEP: The Lost Episodes

I have to say, I love their ending where they make a sexual pun... I guess I am a punaholic!! And also don't forget to check the extras...

Practical Advice on Interpersonal Relationships

2011-04-19T22:50:00.003+03:00

In the past, I have addressed interpersonal relationships from a theoretical standpoint. While I consider the theory of relationships to be extremely important, yet the practice of relationships is equally as important. Theoretical understanding of relationships is not complete without a practical approach that allows the theory to become reality.

This entry is part of the general theme of posts addressing open-relationships. However, the advice applies just as well for closed-relationships as it applies to open-relationships. The reason that open-relationships are not common is because people find it difficult to handle relationships effectively, and the open nature of open-relationships would put lots of stress on any shortcomings in the way relationships are being handled. Closed-relationships avoid the types of situations that would bring problems in the relationships to the surface, and downplays the significance of trust, communication, honesty, and openness. On the other hand, open-relationships requires lots of trust, communication, honesty, and openness, and any shortcomings in those areas would quickly cause problems and stress in the relationship. And if those issues were not handled promptly and skillfully, the relationship would deteriorate. It is for this reason I am writing this entry to share my insight about handling such issues in practice.

The basic guidelines to the survival of relationships includes five important tenets: 1- Being realistic and grounded 2- Being attentive and appreciative 3- Openness 4- Verbal communication 5- Honesty

Allow me to elaborate on those five general guidelines:

1- Being realistic and grounded:
It is important to be in touch with reality and being able to do reality checks. Having unrealistic expectation in a relationship can cause lots of problems and stress in a relationships. Any demands or expectations should be reasonable, otherwise your partner might feel overwhelmed or unappreciated. Another aspect of this advice is being able to translate what is "intangible" into something "tangible". Relationships deal with intangible issues, and being able to translate something that is intangible into something tangible would make handling such issues much easier, and allow you to make realistic claims.

For example, how do you know that someone is interested in you? They would talk to you, pay attention to what you are saying, ask questions that allows them to know you better, return your calls. How do you know that someone misses you? They would call if sometime passed without seeing you. What makes a friendship? Investing time and effort in the continuity of the relationships and making it progress and develop over time.

The point being, those associations between behaviors and what those behaviors imply create a solid foundation on which intangible claims can be verifiable. This is the foundation on which trust is established. If those associations are available to you, then next time someone makes a claim you have something to indicate whether that claim is true or not. If someone says something like: I missed you, I am your friend, I love you, ...etc you have something to refer to, and attempt to qualify the claim. You don't need to take the person's word for what they claim, but rather have an apparatus to gauge how much the claim is real. And when those claims are revealed to be backed up by behaviors that support those claims, trust can start to grow.

So what every person needs to do is to think hard and deep about reliable indicators of people's intentions, and create a mental apparatus that allows them to reliably associate behaviors with intentions, feelings, attitudes, and all of the intangible values that are important in a relationship. The person needs to have this powerful tool present in their mind so that they can use it when needed.

2- Being attentive and appreciative:
Once a person has the mental apparatus mentioned above available to them, they need to use it. They need to pay attention to the different behaviors that their partner exhibits, and try to make educated guesses about their partner. They also need to be responsive to those behaviors. For example, if someone's behavior indicates that they are interested in you, do something that shows them that you noticed their interest in you, and let them know you are interested as well. If someone's behavior indicates that they want to become good friends, acknowledge them and try to engage in friendship building activities.

In other words, be aware of what is going on in the relationship, and let the person know that you are aware of the efforts that they put in the relationship. You also need to use the behavioral association technique in both directions. That is to say, not only should you use it to attempt to interpret your partner's intentions, but also use it to show your partner your intentions towards them. If, for example, you want to show your partner that you want to establish a friendship, use the same behavioral patterns to give your partner tangible indicators about your intentions.

3,4- Openness and Verbal Communication:
When you notice an indicative behavior it is not enough to respond in a behavioral manner, a verbal response is also important. So when you see any behavior that resonate in your mind, it is a good practice to verbally let your partner know that you noticed their behavior and appreciate its significance. It is also important to let your partner know how their tangible actions translate into intangible intentionality. For example, when your partner calls after having not seen him/her in a while, it is good to say something like: "Thank you for calling because this lets me know that you are thinking of me!" This form of communication shows that you appreciate the action, and also explains why the action is significant. Moreover, it shows your partner the mental process using which you interpret their behaviors. This allows your partner to make a mental note of the behavioral associations that exist in your mind, and gives them an idea of how you interpret them and their behaviors.

It is important to let your partner know the behavioral connotations that you have. Both positive and negative connotations. So, if your partner behaves in a way that has positive connotations to you, let them know about it. Same applies when your partner behaves in a way that you perceive to have negative connotations. For example, if your partner makes an important decision without consulting you, it is a good idea to say something like: "I feel that being excluded in the decision making process on this issue indicates that you put your needs ahead of mine! This is why your behavior makes me feel neglected!" Or, if your partner doesn't spend as much time with you as they used to, you can say something like: "The time we spend together is the most important resource for the continuity of the relationship. I feel that if we don't spend more time together the relationship would deteriorate."

When communicating with your partner, it is important to address feelings, emotions, desires, and perceptions. This is because those intangibles are the heart of the relationship, and they are what matters the most. However, those discussions need to be grounded, tangible, and accessible in order to be effective. Otherwise, frustration, disappointment, and even resentment might enter the equation. For example, if one partner says to the other: "I feel that you don't love me anymore!" This statement describes some feelings, however, it does not provide justification for those feelings, nor does it provide any indication of how the situation can be resolved. In this case, the accused partner will feel frustration because they would think: "How the hell am I supposed to show or prove that I still love him/her?!" This is because emotions are intangible, and in the absence of a method to ground those emotions to something tangible the situation would be difficult to resolve. Another possibility is that the accused partner would feel unappreciated because they might think: "I did 1,2,3... I cannot believe he/she does not acknowledge my contribution to the relationship!" And those feelings of being unappreciated might escalate to feelings of resentment. A third possibility is that the accused partner would address the issue and modify his/her behavior. However, this third possibility runs the risk that the behavioral changes do not match what the accuser had in mind, leading to disappointment to be experienced by both partners because they could not resolve the situation.

People do not always agree on the significance of actions, and what those actions indicate. Other times people are not aware of their behaviors and how others interpret and react to their actions. It is for those reasons that it is important for partners discuss in an open and clear manner their expectations and perceptions and voice out their concerns. They also need to discuss the why and how those behavioral associations came to be, because when partners don't agree on what actions translate to, they need to address the mental process using which the translation is justified.

5- Honesty:
Honesty is the basis of intimacy and trust. Sharing information about oneself is how intimacy is cultivated. Getting to know one another creates familiarity and understanding. It is also the process through which trust is founded. Being honest all the time is a difficult task, and requires lots of practice until you can master this essential skill. However, as long as the people in the relationship do not engage in this practice, the relationship cannot grow and will get stuck at some level without any possibility of improvement.

The most difficult part of honesty is knowing the truth. If you do not know the truth, you cannot possibly tell anyone the truth, simply because you cannot speak of what does not exist in your mind. It is for this reason, the first step of honesty is being self-aware. Ask yourself difficult questions, and don't feel threatened by your own thoughts. After all, your thoughts are private and no one can read your thoughts. So, the first step is being honest with oneself. After you understand the truth, you should be aware of your lies. It is difficult to be honest right away, but it is important that you be aware of the information that you reveal about yourself and the accuracy of those information. The third step is to devise proper circumstances to disclose the truth. Understand why you feel the need to lie about yourself to others, then make sure that you are comfortable with who you are, then disclose information about yourself to people you feel comfortable with in non-threatening situations. Finally, after having practiced disclosing information about yourself in comfortable circumstances, you should be able to move to the final stage of disclosing the truth under all circumstances.

Honesty can dramatically improve the quality of relationships, so it would payoff to establish honesty as a norm in all of your intimate relationships. It is important to note that honesty does not only imply telling the truth, but also volunteering the truth. Lies of omission or simply not stating something because nobody asked about it is a form of dishonesty. Honesty involves desire to disclose information, not only truthfulness of disclosed information.

Cryptic Entries

2011-04-04T00:59:00.002+03:00

Stone Sour in "Bother":

Wish I'd died instead of lived
A zombie hides my face
Shell forgotten
with its memories
Diaries left
with cryptic entries (Full lyrics)

Is God An Atheist?

2011-03-29T18:58:00.006+03:00

In realm of the natural, humans differ in their views about how the universe came into existence. While some claim that a supernatural being created the universe, others claim that the universe came into existence without having been created by some supernatural influence. Traditionally, we call the first group "theists" and the second group "atheists".

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God does indeed exist, and that he created the natural universe that we live in. Let's also further assume that religions that claim to be revealed by God are in fact revealed by God. Let's go even more and assume that what God revealed is what God believes is true (ie. God is not lying to us). So what is revealed to us through religions is that God of religions created this universe, and that he was not created, but rather God came into existence without having been created by some kind of "super god".

The question becomes: Is God an atheist? Certainly God cannot prove nor disprove the claim that he was created by some "super god"... So in reality the fact that God does not believe in "super god" in a very real sense makes him super-atheist!!

The Arabs Needed A Victorious Moment

2011-03-28T18:30:00.003+03:00

This is what my father always used to say: "The Arabs need a moment of victory." The meaning of which is that the recent history of the Arab nation is full of failures, and those consecutive failures caused them to be in a state of defeat and frustration, losing confidence and being defeatists. The effect of which lead to shameful results, like the one I blogged about few years back.

Today, the climate is changing. Tunisian revolution was the moment of victory that most Arabs were looking for. I commend the spirit of those revolutions, because as I mentioned in previous posts, the problem was that the Arab nations were looking for victory in places were there is no place for victory. Misplaced anger you might call it. Blaming external forces for their defeat, instead of looking for the real reasons of defeat, which is internal corruption rather than external conspirators.

It is for this reason that the Tunisian revolution has gone viral throughout the Arab world. The victorious moment has come. And for this reason, the claims of the anti-reformists saying that each country is "unique" in its situation is misleading. Those revolutions are spreading precisely because the situation is similar throughout the nation. All of them see the undeniable resemblances across the different regimes that exist today, and all of them require the same kind of solution: Reform.

Protests in Jordan at Al-Dakhiliyeh Roundabout

2011-03-26T02:10:00.013+03:00

Yesterday, Jordanian protesters chose Al-Dakhiliyeh Roundabout as a place to perform their demonstrations. However, I read in the Jordanian newspapers, and declarations from Jordanian officials, those who speak against demonstrating in such places namely because it is a vital place in the city of Amman, and accusing the demonstrators of causing traffic jams and disrupting the flow of everyday life.

First of all, I commend the choice of demonstrators, because such important demonstrations need to exist in highly visible places. And the fact that traffic jams occurred because of the demonstrations is not a negative thing. Justifying violence against protesters because they disrupt the flow of everyday life is such an ignorant claim.

Of course protests will disrupt the normal flow of everyday life, as it should! I find it offensive that the authorities want people to go on with their everyday life, when the country is in crisis. When the parliament does not represent the people, when police interfere with people's legitimate activities, when the intelligence agency spies on civilians, and when corruption is prevalent. Anyone asking people to act as if everything is normal is ignorant, and obviously does not care about democracy and reform.

It is very short-sighted for a citizen in Jordan to be upset that they reached their home a bit late because a traffic jam occurred while knowing that the traffic jam was caused by protests aimed at political reform. And I don't think that Jordanian citizens are that much short-sighted to be upset by that traffic jam. This is simply an excuse for the authorities to obstruct the reform process. Excuses that shows that the people who come up with those excuses are ignorant and corrupt.

In those times, the least of our concerns is normalcy. We don't need people to go on with their everyday life. We need them to be angry, enraged, and mobilized. We need people to demand and make change. And dare I say it, we need nation-wide civil disobedience! Civil disobedience is the basis of democracy, it is the ideal that every nation that respects itself aspires to.

Religions and Politics

2011-03-24T21:13:00.015+02:00

Some people might ask, what does religion have to do with politics?! The answer is A LOT. Religion and politics have very strong ties in many aspects: psychological, socio-economical, socio-political, intellectual, and historical. In history, many countries were founded with religious regimes. Christian and Islamic crusades are prime examples. The Dark Ages when the christian church ruled that caused Europe lots of suffering. And in contemporary politics, Israel which is a state founded on religious background.

However, knowledge of those religions does not explain how religion has been able to have this drastic effect on politics. The reason that religions are powerful is that they shape the intellectual terrain, the ethics and morality of people, and is taught as truth to people ever since they are born. Anyone who studies mainstream religions find that they carry an incredible amount of evil. Mainstream religions teach hypocrisy, fear, false morality, submission, and hate. Anyone who looks at those religions objectively can see their true purpose, which is to enslave humanity.

Most religions are engineered by power-hungry people, and fed to the public to enslave them. It can be seen without ambiguity that mainstream religions pave the way to absolute tyranny. "God" this mysterious being who watches you every minute of every day, and is ready to punish you mercilessly if you disobey. It does not take a genius to figure out that "God" is nothing but the alter-ego of a tyrant government. The primary purpose of religion is to make people sympathize with the idea of absolute tyranny. To trick people into believing that being "watched", "judged", and "punished" is something acceptable. Not only accept this type of behavior, but to support it and root for it. And then it boils down to the oldest trick in the book, bait and switch. Make people accept those heinous behaviors, then the tyrant would engage in those activities without being questioned.

Once people accept the idea of being slaves, enslaving them becomes easier. So teach people that they are slaves to God, then they will be more accepting to be slaves to an autocrat. Teach people that God watches them 24/7, and then having an intelligence agency spying on them becomes acceptable. We now see people okay with governments spying on them with satellites, tapping their phone calls, putting cameras in public places. All those behaviors are facilitated by the psychological warfare that is religion. And of course, God knows everything, so the government should know everything. And God punishes people with endless suffering, so torturing people is okay, especially if torture is used to get information, because the government has a right to know everything. The parallels are endless, but you can now see how mainstream religions fit the picture. Mainstream religions are nothing more than psychological tools that rationalize the actions of a tyrant government, with God as the alter-ego of such governments. When it comes to religion, you need to accept the "facts" without questions, which is very convenient for tyranny. Tyrants don't want people to ask questions, just to obey blindly; And that's easy because they had lots of practice in their religious beliefs.

But of course, God loves us all... That's the christian way of saying: "The government does bad things, but only because they care. It's all for the greater good!"

It is no coincidence that democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Of course change needs time, and the effects of history takes time to heal. But the fight for freedom and democracy is ultimately a fight against religious institutions. The religious beliefs that made tyranny possible and even acceptable. And tyranny and religions shall fall together because they are two sides of the same coin. Anyone observing history can easily see the inverse relationship between freedom and religion. The more religious the public is, the more tyranny is prevalent. And in this time and age, religions are slowly fading away, as freedom is slowly growing more and more. Once again, it is not a coincidence that the most developed nations of our time are those where secularism is prevalent.

Anyone who follows my blog knows that I am a relentless supporter of Satanism. Satan being a symbol of Humanity and rebellion against God. However, it always was (and still is) my vision that promotion of Atheism and Satanism is not just about philosophical investigation of facts of the world, such as whether or not God exists. It goes beyond that: It is a promotion for the ethics and beliefs that will change the world from one that is ruled by tyrants, to one where freedom and personal liberty are essential part of the socio-political scene.

I urge anyone and everyone who is looking for reform in the political arena to understand the negative effects of the religious institutions to our freedom. Your rebellion against tyranny is a rebellion against "God", and rebellion against "God" is rebellion against tyranny. Because at the heart of the matter, they are one and the same. "God" is a symbol of absolute tyranny, and supporting that symbol is the greatest heresy against humanity.

Democracy and Gun Rights

2011-03-10T00:54:00.004+02:00

A number of countries around the world have established Gun Rights as a constitutional right. Some people are not aware of the grave importance of Gun Rights for any true democracy. In my opinion, without Gun Rights no real democracy can exist. And this statement goes beyond an opinion, but is a necessary conclusion of any reasonable person who understands the meaning of democracy and the dynamics of the real world.

Gun Rights are not just constitutional rights but rather a result of deep understanding of Human Rights, specifically the right to exist, also known as the right to life. Self-defense is the concept that emerges when the right to exist is asserted. Any organism that lacks the ability to defend itself from predators will perish.

At the international politics level, the right of a country to own a military army is well established. It stands to reason that a country that lacks a military army cannot sustain itself. So, it can be seen without ambiguity that the right to own a military army is intrinsically associated with its right to exist.

Wars and armed conflicts are generally frowned upon events. Many people have died in wars, and it would be really nice if there was an international law that bans all countries from owning a military army. Don't you agree? Wouldn't it be nice to have a world where no country has an army? Where all wars come to an end and become a thing of the past?

Unfortunately, it stands to reason that if you agree with the proposal above that you are an idiot! A bill to have countries without armies is equivalent to a doomsday device, with a death toll that might reach phenomenal numbers. Because all it takes is one rebellious country that creates a military army and it would invade all other defenseless countries, creating military dictatorships around the world.

So, we have established that the right of a country to own a military army is really part of its right to exist and have independence. This point is usually non-controversial. However, the claim that civilians within a country to have the right to own firearms is not recognized. My arguments lies on two relatively uncontroversial pillars, the result of which inevitably leads to Gun Rights.

The right to exist is generally considered as a human right, and this right alone gives every human a right to own firearms which is necessary for him to defend himself against any threats.

The second pillar is that of democracy. Almost every democratic constitution states that the people are the source of all the power of the state. Legislative, executive, and judicial are the three powers of the state, and the people are the source of those powers. It stands to reason that within a true democracy, the claim that the people are the government is non-controversial. As a matter of fact, this is what it means to have a democratic government.

However, democracy is one form of government. Dictatorship and Tyranny are some of the forms of government that might be competing with democracy to rule. And since in a democratic nation the people are the government, it is part of the right to exist for that government to own the means to defend itself. Those means are Gun Rights. It stands to question how a constitution of democracy asserts that the people are the source of the powers of the state without giving those people the power to defend themselves from threats to their government. Such a constitution is weak, and just like a country without an army would most certainly perish, a democracy without Gun Rights would most certainly perish!

Of course the problem of security and violence comes to mind, however this type of thinking bears dangerous resemblance to the idea of countries without military armies. A simpleton might see merit to gun control, but short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the more dangerous consequences of gun control. The consequences of gun control is giving up the right to exist, and the right to have a democratic government. Both of which are reasonable and legitimate demands.

In reality, gun control only prevents honest law abiding citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves, while corrupt governments, mobsters, terrorists, and firearms dealers have access to firearms. Gun control gives the 'bad guys' access to the means through which they can terrorize people, while the honest and law abiding citizens remain defenseless. This is a situation that non-democratic governments have incentive to keep as status quo.

My Dream Country

2011-03-07T02:52:00.003+02:00

I believe that a hero is the man who tries to become the best, and once he is there tries to out-do himself. That's how we as people should perceive our goals in life. And my dream country is a country full of such heroes.

I dream of a country that sets an example of political philosophy that generations will come trying to achieve what that country has achieved. A political philosophy that embarrasses its neighbors, and rallies them to make political reforms.

Unfortunately, the contemporary political scene in the Arab world is retarded. It feels like the 18th century or something. However, the recent events show that the winds of change has come.

The Arab street has two common stereotypes: Those who want to go back to the 10th century, and those that want to play the catch-up game, and advance to the 20th century. A few have balls enough to enter the 21st century.

Everytime on the news someone says: "This is the 21st century, things shouldn't be like that", I have this urge to take a knife and slit his throat. The catch-up game shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to out-do the 21st century.

What I really wish to hear is someone who says: "This is not good enough, it does not meet the standards of the 25th century!".

Yes, I wish to live in a country where the people in the 25th century would look back at history and say: "Wow, what we just formulated as a standard in political philosophy, there was a country that did it before." And this is the country I dream of.

As far fetched as it might seem to realize, it would be my heartiest desire that this country be Jordan. And for that, I urge everyone who looks for political reform to not be shortsighted. Do not look for quick solutions, but for radical solutions. Do not remedy the symptoms, remedy the disease. Do not aim to imitate, do not aim to catch-up. Aim to set an example. Aim high, and aim true.

Can You Love More Than One Person At The Same Time?

2011-03-01T21:53:00.003+02:00

Is it possible that humans experience love towards more than one person at the same time? It is an interesting question to ponder.

To answer this question, another question needs to be answered: Is it possible to love more than one person at different times? In other words, is love a once in a lifetime experience or something that can happen more than once?

I think that most people would agree that it is possible to love different people at different times. Love can happen again. It would be depressing to think that if you loved a person, then for whatever reason that person is no more in your life that you are not going to experience love ever again. But it is not only depressing but also unrealistic to believe that.

So now lets consider a hypothetical scenario where a person loved more than one person at different times:

Let's say it was a girl who met her first boyfriend in high school. They loved each other, they were fond of each other. Unfortunately life happens, and her boyfriend's family moved to another country and her boyfriend had to move with them. Few years later, she was in university, she met a gorgeous guy, and one thing lead to another they were madly in love. The years go by, and life happens once again. Couple of years later, she meets yet another lovely guy they have so much in common, and right now she is happily engaged to the guy.

It is reasonable to believe that the girl in our scenario had sincere feeling towards all three guys. And it is imaginable that those sincere feelings are all instances of love.

So now, let's imagine a different storyline about those same people, but that they were all classmates in high school. Now, from the previous storyline we know that the girl is capable of having sincere feelings of love towards all three guys. However, the dilemma lies in the fact that she met them all at the same time.

So the question now is: Could she possibly love two or all three of those guys at the same time? Does love transcend the limits of time? Or is she destined to love only one of them?

Recommendations for a Better Government

2011-03-01T15:40:00.002+02:00

In the wake of the waves of reform in the political arena of the Arab world, I have compiled a list of recommendations for what I believe would be a better government and social order. Some of these recommendations are practical for the current world politics, others are progressive, and would hopefully be implemented in future revisions to governments and laws. However, as far fetched some of these recommendations might be, I hope that people would work to realize those recommendations sooner rather than later.

Constitutional Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Government representatives should be elected in a democratic process. This needs to apply to both the legislative and executive powers of the state.
Recommendation 2: Providing alternative means to representative democracy.
Direct democracy and deliberative democracy are good alternatives to representative democracy. Direct democracy was an impractical form of government due to technological limitations. Nowadays, the technological means are available to make direct democracy a viable solution.
Recommendation 3: Independence of the three powers of state: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Recommendation 4: Respecting human rights as described by international treaties by the means of including them as part of the constitution.
Recommendation 5: All citizens are equal with respect to the law. There must be no discrimination against them in terms of race, origin, religion, gender, language, sexual orientation, or social status.
Recommendation 6: The right to a fair and public trial.
All people have the right to a fair and public trial. No person should be imprisoned without trial. No person should be detained without a court order or probable cause. Making trials public is a way of making sure that the proceedings are fair.
Recommendation 7: Secularization of government.
Separation of religion and government is an important aspect of a modern government.
Recommendation 8: Personal liberties must be granted.
This includes (but not limited to): Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of information, freedom to practice politics, freedom to own firearms, freedom to protest and demonstrate, the right to demand overthrowing of government.
Recommendation 9: A constitutional right to overthrow government.
There needs to be laws that recognize the right of civilians to demand overthrowing the government. Those laws can provide legitimacy and order when events similar to what is currently happening around the Arab world.
Recommendation 10: Gun rights as a constitutional right.
Gun rights are the most important civil rights. No government truly respects its citizens unless it admits that civilians have a right to own firearms. Throughout history corrupt governments fight to cease control. The events in Libya is a prime example of a corrupt government that would do anything, including killing civilians to remain in control. Installment of the right to own firearms is the only sincere symbolism of a government that allows its citizens to be in control, and provide practical means in extreme cases to overthrow government if that government became excessively corrupt. Some might be concerned about gun rights, but one quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Recommendation 11: Constitutional freedom of speech and expression.
Another extremely important civil right. The internet and the press need to be protected by the law from any governmental pressure to censor material. There have been brutal attempts to limit the freedom of the internet. Now more than ever, social networking websites might be under pressure to collaborate with governments to expose and eliminate all anti-government activities.
Recommendation 12: Constitutional freedom of religion.
The right to join and abandon existing religions must be granted. Also, the right to create new religions need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly.
Recommendation 13: Constitutional freedom to practice politics.
The right to join and abandon existing political parties must be granted. Also, the right to create new political parties need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly. The right to criticize and investigate the government also need to be recognized as part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of information.
Recommendation 14: Creation of states.
In the interest of pluralism in the government, it can be beneficial to create several states within one country, such that each state can have different laws. This implies that each state would have its own legislative power, making it possible that different state having different laws. If used properly, this allows government to accommodate the needs of a non-homogeneous community, such that citizens are provided with alternatives and make it possible to experiment with the introduction of new laws which might be controversial for some.

Laws Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Abolishing all anti-terrorism laws.
Anti-terrorism laws provide the governments with illegitimate power to abuse citizens. Laws that prohibit gatherings, allow the government to spy and detain civilians without warrant. Such laws are of a government that terrorizes its own people.
Recommendation 2: Legalizing prostitution.
Countless efforts exist to eliminate gender discrimination against women. However, it is a fact that the right to practice prostitution is the most important right for women, and the only permanent and uncompromising solution to the problem of discrimination against women. Legalizing prostitution is the means through which societies eliminate the culture of shame that has been terrorizing women for centuries, as well as, allowing them to seek protection under the law, and form unions that help ensure their security and escape abuse.
Recommendation 3: Legalizing drugs.
Criminalization of drugs is another form of civil oppression by governments. Movements for legalizing marijuana have already started to formulate to varying degrees of success around the world. People are starting to realize how such laws are nothing but tools of oppression for the governments.
Recommendation 4: Legalizing gay-marriages.
Yet another form of discrimination based on sexual-orientation. LGBT rights need to be respected an recognized under the law.
Recommendation 5: Legalizing all forms of consensual polygamy.
Polygamy while not widely recognized as a matter of human rights, it does deserve to be recognized as such. Monogamous marriages is a violation of human rights, and a symbol of oppression that goes unnoticed by many. Legalization of polygamy bears many parallels with legalization of gay marriages. This similarity is defined by the notion that all humans have the right to form relationships with fellow human beings, and to form a legally recognizable bindings if they wish to do so. Hence, the right of marriage should be provided to all.
Recommendation 6: Installment of temporary affirmative action laws.
Affirmative action laws are practical tools to fight discrimination. However, this tool needs to be temporary, because affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination. Laws that provide women with additional seats in the house of representatives, and other laws that protect women from violence (especially honor crimes) and discrimination, all of those are good examples of affirmative action laws that need to exist to accelerate the process of abolishing discrimination.
Recommendation 7: Criminalization of torture.
As part of the human rights, torture must be criminalized and punished by law. This applies but not limited to government agencies that use torture as means of investigation.
Recommendation 8: Criminalization of political imprisonment and secretive imprisonment.
As part of the right to practice politics, the right of assembly, and the right of overthrowing government, detaining civilians for political opposition of government need to be criminalized and punished by law. All prisoners and detainees have the right to inform other civilians about their imprisonment. Details of prisoners and detainees should be provided to the public record as part of the freedom of information and the right to a fair and public trial. Failing to do so must be punishable by law.

Of course, these are only a small sample of modifications that I believe are important to advance government and social order.

Nightmares That Kill 2

2011-02-13T00:26:00.000+02:00

A second look at things that are bad for your health.

Papa Roach in "Be Free":

I'm thinking I am starting to see
I have become everything I never wanted to be
I'm really getting sick of myself
Cause when I look into the mirror, I see somebody else (Full lyrics)

Victory of the Egyptian People Against Dictatorship

2011-02-11T19:19:00.003+02:00

This is a glorious day that will enter history. With freedom comes responsibility. Today is a day for celebration, and tomorrow is the day the real hard-work needs to be done: Taking the responsibility of maintaining this freedom, and using it for the good of the nation.

Congratulations to the Egyptian People.

The Egyptian Revolution

2011-02-07T16:35:00.005+02:00

I rarely speak in favor of the actions of Arabs, but brace yourselves, that's a precedence... The recent events in Egypt is something praise worthy. The people finally got over their lazy asses and demanded actual and tangible change in a positive direction.

Most Arabs are quick to play the blame game. They blame everyone except themselves. America and Israel are mentioned as the greatest evil.... Boohoo, they were either ignorant or cowards to state the truth that the leadership itself was the real enemy. The people were the greatest enemy of their own, because they stand idle while their freedoms where taken away from them.

Those actions are commendable, because this is the first time in a very long time that fingers are being pointed in the right direction, toward reform from within rather than reform from without.

On a more critical stand, I think that the Egyptian Revolution is a step forward, but not a resolution. It creates a chance to make things right, rather than something that sets the record straight in and of itself. Lets hope that this political reform will lead to a liberal-democratic government that respects the rights of its citizens, rather than yet another political system that sacrifices civil liberties for self-serving agendas.

I Love The Cross

2011-02-05T22:51:00.001+02:00

Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence)

2011-02-04T17:09:00.011+02:00

Introduction:
Throughout the years one of most visited posts I had was the emotional rape post. Many people have acknowledged that post touched a relevant topic to people. In this post, I will address the social phenomenon of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which I believe is a topic of extreme relevance, especially in the light of women issues.

This post is based on data and research done in the USA, and I am pretty sure that things are even worse when applied to Jordan and the general region that surround it. I am going to address this topic from surveys and sociology perspectives.

First, we must identify the two major types of IPV:

1- Common Couples Violence
2- Intimate Terrorism

Common Couples Violence (CCV) is the most prevalent form of IPV, and what differentiates CCV from Intimate Terrorism is not the degree or amount of violence, as CCV cover a wide range of violent behaviors from slamming the door in anger to attacking with a knife, and sometimes murder. But CCV is characterized as reactive, emotional, and motivated by frustration. CCV is a result of loss of control due to anger or some other forms of stress. CCV is usually mutual, in the sense that both partners participate in the acts of violence.

On the other hand, Intimate Terrorism is a much more dangerous form of IPV, and is believed to be less common compared to CCV. Intimate Terrorism is characterized as proactive, strategic, and motivated by desire to control the partner. Intimate Terrorism involves physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

Common Couples Violence:

CCV is a sad reality of many intimate relationships. Everybody is pretty much familiar of how it happens; It starts with a heated argument, that escalates to name calling, then psychological aggression, and then physical violence starts. This physical violence manifests itself in various forms: Leaving the room angry, and slamming the door on the way out. Throwing something at the partner. Throwing a dish on the floor. Things might get even uglier where one partner hits, kicks, pushes, and maybe even punches their partner. There are several myths that surround CCV (and IPV in general), and I will address them now:

MYTH 1 - IPV is rare: Reasoned thinking might suggest that two people in a loving relationship would not hurt one another through violence. However, reality is not that simple; many people engage in violent behavior directed towards their significant other. In one survey, conducted by Straus in 1980, 12.1% of husbands and 11.6% of wives admitted that they engaged in physical violence against their partner. Note that this survey used self-reports methodology, in the sense that it asked participants to describe violence that they committed (as opposed to what they were subjected to). Obviously, this percentage is actually high, even considering that it must be an underestimate, since many people would not be willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior.

MYTH 2 - IPV only happens between unhappy couples: Some people might argue that IPV only happens between unhappy couples or loveless marriages. Evidence does not seem to support this claim. Some studies have shown that 50% of newlywed couples (who also report that they are happy) engage in physical violence. Another study in 1992 has shown that high rates of engaged couples who engage in physical violence eventually get married.

MYTH 3 - Only men are violent: As the 1980 study by Straus suggests not only men are violent, but women too. In more recent studies, that also used self-reports methodology, women were reportedly being more aggressive than men. However, those studies have two known weaknesses. First, this result does not show that women are necessarily more violent, it could just mean that they are more willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior. Secondly, those studies focused on behaviors without regard to impact. So, even if women were more likely to slap or punch their partners, the physical damage incurred in such occurrences is not symmetrical to a slap or a punch from the male partner towards the woman. So, studies that focus on violent behaviors can be misleading when the impact of violence is neglected.

MYTH 4 - IPV only happens between married couples: The rationale here is that only committed couples stay in violent relationships; Non-committed couples would simply walkaway. As previously mentioned, some engaged couples who experience violence do eventually get married. There is evidence that violence in relationships also happens in teenage relationships, college relationships, and cohabiting couples. Even some dating couples continue a relationship despite of violence.

Common Couples Violence can be categorized by the impact into two categories:

1- Moderately Aggressive: This includes throwing stuff, grab, shove, slapping, non-excessive punch.
2- Severely Aggressive: This includes: Bruising punches or slaps, heavy beating, threatening with a knife or gun, and attacking with a knife or gun.

In one study, newlywed couples were studied to see what is the relationship between CCV and divorce rates. After four years, 62% of non-violent couples were still married, 54% of moderately violent couples were still married, and only 7% of severely violent couples were still married. As it seems, severe aggression among couples was an important predictor of divorce, whereas moderate aggression was not a direct cause of divorce.

Many couples do not recognize violence as a problem in their relationship. In one study, women that were seeking couples therapy were asked: "What is the most important problem that you hope couples therapy would resolve?". Only 6% reported IPV as the answer to that question. On the other hand, 56% of those women reported that violence happens in their relationship. In other words, 50% of women seeking couples therapy reported that violence exists in their relationship, albeit it was not the reason they were seeking couples therapy.

This suggests that many couples don't see CCV as a problem in and of itself, but rather a manifestation of some other problems. So, if for example, one couple were arguing over a financial situation, and this argument escalates to physical violence, those couples are more likely to think that financial difficulties is the real problem, rather than CCV.

Intimate Terrorism:

Definition: A systematic and sustained effort to control and dominate a partner through physical violence, verbal and psychological abuse, sexual coercion and abuse, economic and social control, and threats.

CCV is reactive. Couples who fail to properly channel their anger and frustration, would let verbal fights escalate to physical violence. In CCV, couples lose control over their behavior an engage in hostile acts. However, Intimate Terrorism is proactive. It is purposeful and systematized. And the purpose of Intimate Terrorism is to control and dominate the partner. To put the partner in a state of fear and submission.

One of the mostly important contributions to the field of Intimate Terrorism is the "Power and Control wheel" (pdf).

This wheel shows "Power and Control" as the center as all the behaviors that are exhibited have one common goal, which is to gain power and control. The rim of the wheel shows "physical violence" because all of the behaviors being described are enabled through the use of physical violence. The behaviors mentioned are as follows:

Emotional Abuse: Belittle and name calling. The idea is that the abuser tries to convince the victim that she is worthless, incompetent, and even not worthy of love. The abuser might say something like: "You are worthless. Luckily for you, I love you, because if I didn't love you, nobody else would!". The idea is that if she believes that she is worthless, then she would be broken, yet feeling in-debt to the abuser. Hence the abuser gains complete control.
Sexual Abuse: Spousal rape. Disrupting sleep to have sex. Forcing unwanted sexual activities. Unfounded accusations of sexual infidelity.
Isolation: To control who the victim knows, sees, or interacts with. Cutting ties with the family and the outside world, to make sure that the victim cannot get the help she desperately needs.
Minimizing, denying, and blaming: The abuser denies that his actions are violent, convinces the victim that she is overreacting, blaming her for the violence. The abuser might say something like: "Well, had you done the things I asked you to do, I wouldn't have had to hit you. So next time be a dear and do exactly as I say."
Using children: Making the victim feel responsibility towards the children, possibly by threatening violence towards the children if she does not obey.
Economic Abuse: Denying women the right to work and making them dependent on the abuser. Closing their bank accounts, cutting their credit cards. All of these actions make the victim dependent on the abuser, and consequently giving them control.
Male Privilege: Using social norms and gender roles to enforce and justify the situation.
Intimidation, Coercion and Threats: Making threats of using physical violence.

One of the questions that arise is: Why do women who are with an abusive partner remain in the relationship? The question is difficult, but there are some good reasons that explain this behavior. First of all, those women are usually helpless. As explained by the behaviors mentioned above, those women are in a state of terror, their confidence is eroded, their ties with the outside world is limited, they are emotionally and financially dependent, and they are afraid that any attempt to escape will create extreme violent reactions from their partner. In USA, there are battered women shelters, which host battered women, give them protection, and in extreme cases those shelters would give the women new identities so that they can escape safely from their partners. However, some women in abusive relationships might not even know of the existence of those shelters, because their partner has cut down all routes of information which may be used to seek help.

Another important reason is revealed through the cycle of abuse (pdf).

The cycle of abuse happens in three phases (some might say four):

Tension-building: The abuser shows signs of discontent, creates tense situations. This phase lasts for several days.
Abusive incident: This is when the violence happens.
Reconciliation: This is the most crucial phase. In this phase the abuser apologizes, promises to change, and promises the abuse would not happen again. The problem is that this phase creates positive reinforcement. After the abuse, the victim feels rewarded by for sticking around and not walking away from the relationship. The victim feels rewarded for forgiving her partner. It is also important to realize that the victim is highly motivated to believe those promises, because she is dependent on the abuser, and she is forced to a certain extent to put up with the abuse. And hence, this "honeymoon" phase is misinterpreted as a positive experience.

Studies have shown that the best way to resolve Intimate Terrorism is to help the victim escape, preferably with the aid of professionals who work for humanitarian causes.

Conclusion:
As usual, awareness if the first line of defense. So being educated about those issues should be crucial to battling those phenomena.

PS: This entry is based on lecture by professor Benjamen Karney, titled "Managing Differences, Part 2"

The Problem of Infinite Regress

2011-01-15T01:58:00.002+02:00

One particular argument for the existence of God is as follows: Given that the universe exists, there must be something that created it. So if God is defined as the creator of this universe, then God must exist.

There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.

Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.

In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?

Nightmares That Kill

2011-01-10T21:36:00.001+02:00

Papa Roach in "Blanket Of Fear":

So hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality
Hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality

I'm falling in my dream; I finally hit the ground
I'm falling in my dream, I finally hit the ground
I hit the ground
Because I, I cant keep my mind from going into dark places (Full lyrics)

About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy

2011-01-04T03:52:00.010+02:00

This post handles the issue of open-relationships, however it approaches the subject from the point of view of the emotions that are relevant to relationships. The notion of love is very critical to the conception of interpersonal relationships, because the emotion of love is one of the determining factors to the nature of that relationship.

Love is a general term. Consider the following statements:
- "I love chocolate."
- "I love science."
- "I love my parents."
- "I love my son."
- "I love being in love." (Or a general case of loving a particular emotion)
- "I love that person." (In the context of friendship)
- "I love that person." (In a context of romance)

As it seems, there are different notions of love. There are different types of things that can be the object of love. And there are numerous ways to love an object of a given category.

However, the general theme of love has to do with the feelings that are accompanied with the object of love. Generally speaking, pleasant and positive feelings. So when you say, "I love chocolate" your love is contingent on the 'reinforcing' feeling that occurs when you experience eating chocolate. Same applies to the statement about loving science, which implies that there are pleasant feelings that accompany the experience of studying science.

Let's take a moment and talk about the concept of a 'reinforcing feeling'. I will not discuss the causality issue of reinforcing feeling, but the phenomenon of it. A reinforcing feeling is the type of feeling that you will want to experience again. You eat chocolate, you like the taste, so you will want to eat more. You find studying science enjoyable so you will engage yourself in that activity. And this relationship between an experience and the feelings that accompany that experience, coupled with a contingency that the feelings in question are pleasant (hence reinforcing feelings) would be the basis upon which the emotion of love is realized.

So, let's further our discussion to the cases where the object of love is a person. In those cases, the interaction is more elaborate, and the concept of reciprocal love comes into light. If you love chocolate, the interaction is strictly one-sided since chocolate is an inanimate object. If you love your cat, the situation gets slightly more complicated since the interaction is two-sided. However, when you love a person there are many more elements that come into play. Reciprocity in love becomes a major element. However, in my personal view which is consistent with the view of reinforcing feeling, love of one person to another is independent of being 'loved back'. Hence, one-sided love is an actual possibility. In general, reciprocation of love acts as an amplification tool. In other words, if you find that being with a person is a pleasant experience, and they in return find your company pleasurable, two things will happen: First, the two-sided positive interaction will make the experience more pleasurable, and hence would enhance the 'quality' of the experience. Second, the two people are naturally going to spend more time together, and thus will increase the 'quantity' of the experience. And the combination of those two effects would amplify the experiences which realizes a more profound notion of love.

This conclusion is important, so as to differentiate love as a feeling directed towards a person, and love viewed in the context of a relationship. This implies that the conception of love in the context of a relationship needs to be a pleasant experience in the case of bestowal of love, as well as, the reception of love.

While the concept of love that I just described is highly self-centered, but still this love involves the concept of a relationship (in the general sense) and can also be related to interpersonal relationships. If we consider the statement "Person-X loves Object-Y", we are describing an interaction between 'Person-X' and 'Object-Y', and not only are we implying that there is an interaction, but that this interaction is considered to be a pleasant experience from Person-X's point of view. And this interaction embodies the relationship in question.

After this crude introduction to the emotion of love, let's divert our attention to the emotion of jealousy. Again jealousy means different things to different people, but the most general theme about jealousy is fear of loss. This is the main property that I will assume to be characteristic to the emotion of jealousy. And to make a stronger notion of jealousy, jealousy is about fear of loss of ownership.

To make an example outside the realm of sexuality and fidelity, let's consider this typical scenario concerning children. Let's consider two little kids, and they are playing together in a room. And in that room there is a toy that belongs to one of the kids. At some point the kid that does not own the toy, goes ahead and starts playing with that toy. Now, the kid who the toy belongs to would notice this action, and this would trigger the emotion of jealousy, and consequently would go to the other kid and asserts his sense of ownership. He might say something like: "Give it back, it's mine!". This scenario illustrates a display of the emotion of jealousy.

And this is exactly what happens in a sexual context or even a pseudo-sexual context. If a man sees another man hitting on 'his woman', it would trigger an emotion of jealousy, and would consequently try to assert his sense of ownership. Needless to say, this is a general theme that applies to girls being jealous towards another girl, and it also applies in a context of non-heterosexuality. That being said, the general theme here is that people are acting based on a perceived sense of ownership.

However, this sense of ownership needs to be put in question. It is a generally accepted notion that people who are in love 'belong together'. But jealousy is actually demonstrating a different notion that people who are in love 'belong TO each other'. Personally, I consider both notions to be misleading. And I also consider the notion of 'belonging-to someone' as not only misleading, but insulting as well. In other words, I would consider the notion that 'Person-X belongs to me' as an insult towards Person-X, and I -personally- find that insulting someone I love as an action that is not in my best interest. Likewise, I would put into question a statement of love from a person who is insulting me.

So, if we go back to the view that love is correlated to pleasant feelings, I find that insult does not fit the profile of love, and consequently jealousy and love are at direct contradiction (at least based on that particular view of insult and unpleasantness).

There is a notion that some people believe that jealousy is an act of love. The argument would go something like: "If you love a person, it is a normal -maybe even healthy- to display the emotion of jealousy." Personally, I dismiss such an argument based on my above mentioned views. However, there are some more generalized accounts based on which we might dismiss this argument. One such account is the view that jealousy is a 'distancing emotion' and it also is a display of distrust. Jealousy at its core is a fight of "me" against "them", and in this mental picture, the person views himself at a distance, and views that his partner and the third party are forming a bond which he needs to break. And hence, the person who feels jealousy continuously perceives the relationship to be in flux, where the relationship is suffering from continuous ups and downs that he needs to fix. This shows that the person feeling jealousy sees the relationship as 'hanging-by-a-thread', and also shows a great amount of insecurity regarding the trustworthiness of his partner.

Jealousy in terms of the objects that the dynamics are occurring can be thought of as a 'threesome'. It is a 'threesome' in the sense that it involves three entities. The lover, the object of love, and the rival. When talking about jealousy we are often discussing the theme of a love triangle. A guy is in love with a girl, and there is another guy trying to win the love of that girl. However, if we take one step back, and see the larger picture, we find out that jealousy (in the sexual context) is actually a 'foursome', the fourth entity being society. This is in the sense that the jealous person is not only concerned about his personal interest in the loved one, but also concerned about the feelings of shame and embarrassment that is associated with infidelity. There is a social pressure that if a man sleeps with your wife, then you will be socially rejected. If we want to discuss jealousy in terms of fear of loss, we can easily see that a person has not only a loved person at stake, but also a perceived notion of 'honor' as it is applicable in the social context. I will not go into further details about this problem, but it is obvious that the social context of a relationship is influential.

In addition to jealousy, there is a related -but very different- aspect of negative emotions that are emphasized in closed-relationships. This aspect is mostly illustrated in discussions I have about open-relationships with guys, namely envy. The argument goes as follows: "Imagine that you got a girlfriend, you agree to have an open-relationship, and the end result is that your girlfriend is having sex with a new guy every day, while you are failing at finding any sexual partners. Would you still want the relationship to be open?" Now, obviously this argument reduces open-relationships to a contest of which partner 'scores' the most. Envy is the emotion that is characterized by distress over other people's good fortune, which is exactly whats going on in this particular argument. This kind of argument shows deep misunderstanding of the person making that argument as to what open-relationships are really about, but it also demonstrates a very negative aspect of closed-relationships. Jealousy is an emotion directed towards a third party, who is perceived as threat to what we own. On the other hand, envy is an emotion directed towards your partner in such a way that you'd hate for good things to happen to your partner. And this emotion of envy, in my opinion, is at much more contradiction with regards to love, compared to jealousy. In other words, if the concept of love leads to destructive actions directed towards your partner, then that conception of love is self-refuting.

Now, let's talk about a concept that many people have, namely 'true love'. The notion of 'true love' implies the existence of another notion of 'false love'. I am not interested in the exact definitions of those notions, but the fact that we differentiate those categories is revealing. The distinction implies that 'true love' has specific features that do not exist in the general concept of love. And since we are considering love in terms of the feelings that accompany it, this means that the person making the distinction has a different set of feelings to describe 'true love' as opposed to 'false love'. So, for the sake of argument, let's define 'true love' as the type of love someone is interested in. Which means that the person looking for 'true love' is looking for a specific set of feelings that accompany that emotion of love.

Going back to the emotion of jealousy, some people might argue that in fact jealousy leads to pleasant feelings. To demonstrate that, let's go back to the example of the kids, where one kid starts playing with a toy that does not belong to him. To view the events in terms of causality we can say that:
1- The kid who displays jealousy has a perceived notion of ownership of the toy.
2- The kid then perceives a situation where his sense of ownership is threatened
3- Based on that perception the emotion of jealousy is triggered
4- The kid decides to act upon his sense of ownership
5- The kid consequently asserts his sense of ownership
And at stage 5, our example has ended. But let's consider the continuation of this scenario, by supposing that the other kid concedes and gives back the toy.
6- The toy is returned
7- At this point, the kid to whom the toy belongs to might get a sense of authority over the other kid.
8- This perceived sense of authority is interpreted as a pleasant feeling.

We can see that jealousy has a causal relationship with pleasant feelings under some circumstances. And this leads some people to find a correlation between love and jealousy. Basically, the person who asserts that his notion of love requires sexual fidelity, is indirectly trying to satisfy a need for authority. So when a person tells a loved one: "I expect you to be sexually faithful", he is indirectly saying: "One of the pleasant feelings that I experience with you is a sense of authority, and you need to keep it that way, because my love for you is contingent on that pleasant feeling." In other words, love is reduced to a tool using which a person maintains his sense of authority.

At this point we can go back to the notion of 'true love', and ask ourselves: "Is that sense of authority a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?". For some people the answer is 'yes', but for me, the answer is 'definitely not'. Obviously, this argument implies that open-relationships does not work for everybody, only the subset of people who reject the view that jealousy is a desirable feature of love.

Of course, some people would argue that expectations of fidelity have less to do with the sense of authority, and more to do with the sense security. I agree that in this view expectations of fidelity can be viewed less harshly, but once again the question is raised: "Is that sense of security a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?"

Finally, this series of posts handles only a small part of my personal theory of open-relationships. Open-relationships can be approached in terms of emotions, psychology, dynamics of relationships, ethics of relationships, or practice. This post discussed the emotions of love and jealousy. But this is not the most important issue regarding open-relationships in my opinion. The issue the I think is most important is the dynamics of the relationships, which I introduced (without details) in this post. In the context of that post, love is part of the motivation to be in a relationship. And thus, this series is merely one aspect of the broad topic of open-relationships.

In this series:
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity
Next: About Love - Part 3: Love and Sexuality
Next: About Love - Part 4: True Love

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

2010-08-19T01:12:00.006+03:00

Music fans commonly wonder about the guidelines to distinguish the different genres of music that they listen to. Couple of years ago, I used to listen to the Metal and Rock categories. But the subtle differences between the different sub-categories sometimes still puzzle me. Unfortunately, I never to this date found any properly illustrated guide to this category of music. However, nowadays, I am all into Electronic Music, and Trance in particular. Interestingly, I have found a proper guide to Electronic Music. So if you ever wondered what's the difference between Trance, Techno, and House, today is your lucky day. Even all the sub-genres of those encompassing musical genres. Everything with excerpts of typical songs that belong to that particular category!

Details can be found in Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music.

Raped Freedom of Speech

2010-07-20T23:45:00.001+03:00

Read this shocking news item!

Enough said.

It might be a good idea to start encrypting all your communications online!! At least this is technically a good way to protect your freedom of speech and privacy in a world where laws and regulations don't respect our basic human rights.

No Giving Up on Open-Relationships

2010-06-19T09:14:00.001+03:00

This entry is an addendum to a previous post: The Most Drastic Fear

I have already explained that my worst fear is disappointing myself. The thing is, everytime I think of what my life needs to have the quality of being good enough, so as not to be disappointing, is love.

My friends tell me that I over-analyze things, and that sometimes something catches my attention so much that I focus my attention to that detail so much such that it seems essential to everything.

And that's actually what happened. I do all that, and I have over-analyzed the concept of love, and discovered through my analysis that there is only one kind of love that is so meaningful, to the point of making it so satisfying that you can be sure to never be disappointed. This love is the one that happens in the context of an open-relationship.

I have mentioned before that I would explain my position on open-relationships. This post does not explain the analysis used to reach that conclusion, but it explains why I wish to realize this type of relationship so fanatically. It is seems to be the only way to a love that I can swear by!!

The Most Drastic Fear

2010-06-19T07:42:00.008+03:00

My dad always tells me that I should fear nothing in life, and that he has no fear of anything. I believed him, but never understood the extent of what that meant. However, recently he told us somethings that showed me the extent of how much a man can fear nothing. My dad works currently in Saudi Arabia, not in a city, in a village secluded from civilization. My dad when he feels bored on weekends, he like to go drive far away. So he takes the car and drives away, and he does not turn back. No.... when the night hits, he parks a little off-road in the desert, puts a sleeping bag on the sand and sleeps.

This stricked me as something only a truly fearless man would do. He can sleep in the middle of the desert, when he could have just as easily turned back and eventually sleep at home. And it makes me think how much my life could have been different if I were as fearless as my father.

I have contemplated on my own fears, and was very conflicted when I tried to see if I had so many fears, or so few of them. I could not understand whether or not I have too few or too many fears. However, in a moment of clarity, I saw the answer to my question. I have conquered all fears, including the fear of death.

However, there is still one fear that tops it all: The fear of disappointing myself. My only fear is that when I see my end, and death would be near, I would take a look back at my life... similar to the flash backs they say a person has when he's dying, say falling from a tall building. So I only fear for my future self, to witness such a flash back and be disappointed. Every other fear I have conquered, except this one!

PS: As a postscript, it is also worth mentioning, that I fear for myself only those few moments before death, but no concern at all for anything after that, because death would be the complete inexistence of my conscience, so there is no me to be concerned about. I also don't fear sudden death, where I would not have seen that flash back. And from this I understand that I don't fear death itself.

Cleanternet: For A Cleaner and Safer Internet

2010-04-30T05:53:00.001+03:00

Who doesn't want a cleaner internet?! Who doesn't want to put a stop to Child pornography, as well as, all the other evils that come with the internet. We all do want a cleaner internet, and Cleanternet is the solution. Lets all raise our hands in support of this progressive movement....

Click here for a video demonstration about the proposal for Cleanternet...

Barack Obama Speaks About Religion And Secularism

2010-04-18T21:14:00.003+03:00

Click here for a Youtube video, showing a very interesting speech made by the US President, Barack Obama.

I loved the whole speech, especially the part that says:

"Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason." - Barack Obama

For the full speech click here

Some Comments Have Been Lost

2010-04-13T03:42:00.006+03:00

While I was browsing some of the old blog posts here on my blog, I noticed some posts that had "0 comments", which I was pretty sure that I did receive several comments on. Needless to say, I never authorized such a deletion of contents and I am very disappointed how Google would let something like this happen. I did not suppose Google would be unreliable so as to lose dozens of comments on this blog.

I am going to communicate with Google in an attempt to retrieve as much as possible of the lost comments (I think its unlikely they lost the content for good, although I cannot be sure how co-operative they will be in this regard).

Anyways, any concerned blogger should recheck old posts for missing comments. If my observation is correct, the affected posts are those made during or before the year 2006.

Digital Copies Are Not Theft

2010-04-13T02:59:00.004+03:00

Some proponents of digital copyright laws make the conjecture that "pirating" movies and music is an act of theft, and that it constitutes in some way stealing. However, this is completely ludicrous as the concept of theft is directly constructed on the concept of starvation.

The concept of starvation is that when someone steals an item, the owner of that item loses it. So if a thief steals your car, you can no longer have that car. While theft might not be universally evil in all situations (consider a starving man stealing food to stay alive - X-Ref), but digital copies are in no way resembling the act of theft. Simply put, there is no starvation in a digital world. Pirated copies are, as the name suggests, "copies" and the content in question is still available to its original owner.

However, don't jump to conclusions. Proving that pirating digital material is not theft, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimacy of piracy. However, it is imperative to make this distinction when corporations are willing to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to delegitimize digital piracy.

Richard Dawkins Planning to Get the Pope Arrested

2010-04-11T16:21:00.004+03:00

Richard Dawkins - atheist campaigner and evolutionist - is planning to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he comes to Britain later this year for "crimes against humanity".

As most people know, Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of involvement in the cover up operation of child-molestation executed by some priests. However, at that time there was no legal action taken against him to hold him responsible in helping the priests in question avoid legal liability.

The major setback in this case is that the Pope is head of state (the Vatican), which provides immunity from prosecution. However, Dawkins is hoping to create a legal case which can circumvent the immunity given to the Pope.

Another case-in-point is that this alleged cover up has been done while the Pope was still a Cardinal. This is useful, because the immunity from prosecution is given to crimes that the head of state commits while being in the said position -not before. Hence, the Pope would be charged for an offense before he actually became Pope, and this might help make a legal case for the prosecution.

Click here for news item
Click here for Richard Dawkins blog entry

Clouded Vision

2010-03-15T08:24:00.009+02:00

I have been asking myself lots of questions these days... Am I happy? If not, can I ever be? Would I ever figure out what I need to get there? Have I done the right choices in my life? Have I done the wrong choices? How can I find out? And if I figure that I have done wrong choices, would there be anything to do to fix them? Or is it too late for fixing critical mistakes?

I have went to study the masters in the United Arab Emirates, I left home, family and friends. I thought this would be an opportunity to change my life, or even maybe myself. My current environment is completely changed. But neither my life nor myself have changed... I find that I have changed everything but myself... Is this a sign? Does this mean that I love my life and I don't want it to change? Or does this mean that I am repeating my past mistakes? How do I know the difference? Would changing my environment yet again help me to a fresh start? Or would I end up repeating the same mistakes yet again?

Is there something flawed in my method? Or is it that I have simply not been given the opportunity to reap the fruit? Can I ever forgive myself for the disappointment? Or do I have no reason to be disappointed in myself?

Am I too critical of myself that I don't see the greatness of my achievements? Or have I been too easy on myself that I put myself on a path of disappointment? Should I try harder or let go?

Questions, but no answers!! Is it too late to find the answers?

Cheating

2009-10-12T20:44:00.004+03:00

"Everyone has that first date. And the object is to hide your flaws, and then you are in a relationship and its all about hiding your disappointment, then once you are married its about hiding your sins."

Adelle DeWitt / Dollhouse

Going Away.... To The Future

2009-04-23T19:41:00.003+03:00

Infected Mushrooms in "The Cities of the Future":

We gonna run run run
To the cities of the future
Take what we can and bring back home
So take me down to the cities of the future
Everybody's happy and i feel at home

I found myself going away
Never wanting to go back again.
Leaving all my thoughts behind
Searching for some new ones inside. (Full lyrics)

I, a long time ago, have promised myself to leave all that I have known for something better..... Someday!

Pelagianism: An Unorthodox Christian View

2009-02-04T21:04:00.000+02:00

Pelagianism is Christian denomination that reforms the understanding about salvation; that is, the means by which humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. Pelagianism challenges two views held by most Christian churches, namely: The concept of the "Original Sin" and the salvation provided by the crucification of Jesus. Pelagianism was founded by a British monk called Pelagius.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his descendants and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation before he sinned. Pelagius taught that salvation could be attained through free will alone, without the redemption of divine grace.

Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

Thusly, Pelagius claims that humans are fully responsible through their free will, for both sins and goodness. Because by denying the effect of the original sin on mankind, humans cannot justify their actions as a consequence of the original sin. Likewise, humans are responsible for their own goodness and their own salvation. In a certain sense, and according to the teachings of Pelagius, Jesus' existence was a living proof that humans can be good, and had no redemption value beyond that.

Let's Pray To Satan

2009-01-10T08:37:00.002+02:00

Meta-Religion: RHP vs LHP

2009-01-03T17:22:00.007+02:00

One of the main concepts that need to be addressed when analyzing religions is the difference between a Left Hand Path (LHP) religion, and a Right Hand Path (RHP) religion. Since the exact definition of the RHP and LHP is not well established, I will approach those concepts from a point of view that is most meaningful for my personal views.

Most mainstream religions follow the RHP; Examples include all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Most Satanic divisions follow the LHP.

So what do those paths entail?!

The main difference between those two paths is their views to individualism, morality, meaning, and the way their followers perceive idealism. First of all, LHP religions emphasize individualism and self-reliance. The RHP emphasizes the need for a deity or a divine being. The RHP believes that humans cannot achieve goodness on their own. The intent of "Right-Hand Path" belief systems is to attain proximity to divinity, or integration with divinity. Thats why we find RHP followers try to connect with a divine being through different methods. The RHP conceives perfection of its deity, and tries to achieve that perfection through methods dictated by that deity, or by imitating that deity.

We find that this issue in particular is a major attack point of RHP followers against LHP followers. Although atheism is not strictly a LHP (some atheists might subscribe to the RHP), but we find that RHP followers are afraid of atheists. Atheists are usually described as being immoral while "God" followers are described as moral. A common argument that RHP followers usually present is that they attain their morals from their holy books and their God, then they ask where do the atheists get their morals from?!

"Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy." — Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League

"How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world." — Tim Wildmon, American Family Association

If we look in depth at that argument we find that those RHP followers cannot perceive morality to be attained without a deity. This approach is very dangerous; A good article on this subject called: "Positive Atheism: Ethical Stability" demonstrates the volatility of the RHP approach to morality.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." — Albert Einstein

While the above quote handles a slightly different issue that might not apply to all RHP religions, this is another argument about the moral volatility of some mainstream religions.

In short, the RHP religions are based on the belief that humans need a deity to achieve goodness, morality, idealism, giving their life meaning, deliverance, and many other concepts that they believe that they cannot achieve on their own. In contrast, the LHP is based on the belief that humans need to work on and make an effort to achieve goodness, morality, meaning, ...etc, and that humans can achieve those results on their own. Results may vary, one person might find meaning different than another, another might find morality different than another, and some might define goodness different than others. Some might achieve their set goals, other might not. No deities are needed, no supernaturals, only the work of human hands. As we can see, choice and responsibility are very necessary for the LHP.

RHP is based on the belief that humans need to be part of something larger than themselves. They need a deity to give their lives meaning. The RHP religions usually require submission to a collective group and\or a deity. For this reason, we find that RHP followers are usually involved in working for a "greater will", a "divine plan", or "God's will"!! All those concepts diminish the value of the individual because those individuals are only perceived to have value through their connection to the deity. On the other hand, the LHP emphasizes the value of the individual independently of any groups they might participate in. The LHP is solitary, individualistic, personal, based on self-development, self-analysis, and self-empowerment.

This shades some light on the common questions Satanists receive by those with a RHP background. "Why do you worship Satan?", "Who do you worship?", as pressing as it might seem to the RHP followers to know "who to worship", this question is of least significance in the LHP, and is also pretty much meaningless question. The need of an object to worship is a characteristic of the RHP that can be very blinding when applying this methodology to a LHP religion. The RHP followers fail to perceive a religion where there is no-one to worship, where there is no leader to follow, where there is no absolute book of truth.

Another aspect where the LHP and RHP differ is their attitude toward the concept of darkness. LHP usually embraces darkness, while RHP usually fears darkness. Darkness symbolizes lack of sight, or more generally lack of knowledge. Darkness also symbolizes the unknown.

So why does the RHP fear the darkness while the LHP embraces it?!

The reason is that RHP is based on the belief that the humans lack the ability to learn and to explore the unknown. RHP is based on the concept of guidance. RHP depends on a divine being guiding its followers, a divine being to light up their path and show them the way. In contrast, the LHP is based on self-reliance. LHP encourages exploration of the darkness. LHP is based on the the humans' ability to create light in the darkness. So LHP does not avoid the darkness, but encourages its followers to explore that darkness, uncover its deepest secrets, and bring it into the light.

The conception of "God" is an obvious example of the RHP disbelief in the humans' ability to explore the unknown. While the exact details of the origin of the universe is unknown, the RHP simply does not give humans the chance to explore, and discover the reality of the origins of the universe on their own. Instead, the RHP provides unfounded conception of "God", thus releasing its followers from the need to explore.

In addition to what has been said, the LHP differs from the RHP in that the LHP emphasizes on freethought, whereas the RHP is usually dogmatic with strict rules. The LHP expects its followers to individually investigate, analyze, and decide their own set of beliefs, morals, ethics, make their own decisions, and plan their own lives. This is evident in all LHP literature that leaves so much for the individual to decide on their own. On the other hand, the RHP expects its followers to follow a strict set of rules and dogma. Many followers of the RHP become too engaged with following rules, and if no rules exist in their books, they might consult a theologian of their respective religion. Some RHP religions reach ridiculous extents in such rulings, that some RHP religions interfere with the personal life of its followers. For example, Islam and Judaism have strict rules of what its followers may and may not eat... In my personal opinion, those fine-grained rules that handles the most trivial issues, such as what and what not to eat, shows how much those RHP religions are absorbed in the process of dogmatism and the dire need for submission.

To make it in few points:

RHP is the path of dependence on and\or submission to an ideal being, with perceived perfection, usually a deity.
RHP is the path lightened by the perceived ideal, and guidance is provided through that ideal or its teachings.
RHP is the path of integration with something larger than oneself, usually a deity, or the group of followers.
LHP is the path of independence and self-reliance.
LHP is the path of freethought.
LHP is the path of responsibility through choice.
LHP is the path of creating your own conception of morality, goodness, and idealism.
LHP is the path of unguided explorations, and uncovering the unknown.
LHP is the path of appreciating your own individualism and uniqueness.

Get 'Em Boys

2008-12-27T15:53:00.008+02:00

Hamas launches over 70 rockets towards Israeli civilians...
One Israeli civilian killed.

Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is a hero!
He threw a pair of shoes at G. W. Bush, the president of America.

Egypt saves the day.
Egypt sends ambulances to Palestine in response to Israeli attacks that killed and injured hundreds.

Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3

2008-12-25T12:21:00.007+02:00

The Book of Lucifer:
The "book of Lucifer" is my personal favorite part of the Satanic Bible. This is the book of Enlightenment. While the "book of Satan" states many of the Satanic beliefs, it lacks presenting explanations and justifications for those beliefs. The "book of Lucifer" is basically the more explained and justified part of the bible.

Lavey provides this magnificent introduction:
The Roman god, Lucifer, was the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, the personification of enlightenment. In Christian mythology he became synonymous with evil, which was only to have been expected from a religion whose very existence is perpetuated by clouded definitions and bogus values! It is time to set the record straight. False moralisms and occult inaccuracies must be corrected. Entertaining as they might be, most stories and plays about Devil worship must be recognized as the obsolete absurdities they are. It has been said "the truth will make men free". The truth alone has never set anyone free. It is only DOUBT which will bring mental emancipation. Without the wonderful element of doubt, the doorway through which truth passes would be tightly shut, impervious to the most strenuous poundings of a thousand Lucifers. How understandable that Holy Scripture should refer to the Infernal monarch as the "father of lies" - a magnificent example of character inversion. If one is to believe this theological accusation that the Devil represents falsehood, then it surely must be concurred that it was HE, NOT GOD, THAT ESTABLISHED ALL SPIRITUAL RELIGIONS AND WHO WROTE ALL OF THE HOLY BIBLES! When one doubt is followed by another, the bubble, grown large from long accumulated fallacies, threatens to burst. For those who already doubt supposed truths, this book is revelation. Then Lucifer will have risen. Now is the time for doubt! The bubble of falsehood is bursting and its sound is the roar of the world!

References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)

In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3

Beginning of Unwisdom

2008-12-20T18:48:00.003+02:00

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

Richard Dawkins

Enough said.

Sado Maso 2

2008-12-03T02:59:00.005+02:00

A second look at the dark side of life:

Mortal Love in "I Want to Die":

We have touched for the last time
You are long gone, in love with someone else
I now fear nothing but life itself
And I have learned that living is just a slow way to die
I do not believe in life or in love anymore.
The joy I feel are the joys of emptiness
I hate myself for loving you
The fear I feel night after night has developed into a disease
No-one can see the emptiness in my eyes.
To escape life itself now seems the only solution
With relief I look forward of letting go of the pain
Finally... there is peace in my soul
To lie dead without a concern, without a tear,
You own my heart
And life without you is so immensely painful
Just to think of you, talk about you, dream of you,
makes tears stream down my face
I cannot imagine happiness without your beautiful smile,
your angelic face,
your wonderful body and your good heart:
You are everything, I am nothing
I want to die
But really... I am already dead (Full lyrics)

Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2

2008-12-01T10:04:00.007+02:00

The Book of Satan:
The "book of satan" is composed of five parts. It contains several verses that contains relevations about the falsehood of several religions and the 'religious institutions'.
Lavey provides this introduction:
The Devil has been attacked by the men of God relentlessly and without reservation. Never has there been an opportunity, short of fiction, for the Dark Prince to speak out in the same manner as the spokesmen of the Lord of the Righteous. The pulpit-pounders of the past have been free to define "good" and "evil" as they see fit, and have gladly smashed into oblivion any who disagree with their lies - both verbally and, at times, physically. Their talk of "charity", when applied to His Infernal Majesty, becomes an empty sham - and most unfairly, too, considering the obvious fact that without their Satanic foe their very religions would collapse.

The Book of Satan I:

In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!
In this verse, Lavey admits the truth that the "Rule of the Jungle" is the supreme law. This law is justifiably true - and in my personal judgment is also fair.
Open your eyes that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!
For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!
I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments.
Lavey publicly and clearly states his challenge to the "laws of Man": The laws of man are those laws that are created by people to control other people. He also claims a challenge to the "laws of God". In this context, Lavey mentions God in its Christian interpretation [hence he uses "God" with quotes].
Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!
Lavey states his refusal to follow divine idols or commands. The term "thou shalt" means being given orders, but Satanists hate to be given orders, and so Lavey states animosity towards those who give orders.
I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: The TRUE prince of evil - the king of slaves!
In Christian mythology, as Jesus [The son of God] was on the cross, "a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Luke 23:38)^(*). Lavey mentions this incident and states the slogans he would think be more befitting:
1- The TRUE prince of evil: Lavey states that Jesus is the true evil, because his story is meant to spread lies, teach hypocrisy, and enslave his followers through a questionable sacrifice.
2- The King of Slaves: Many followers of the Abrahamic religions consider themselves as slaves to God. Hence the name the King of Slaves. Here we notice that Christianity and other religions are trying to take away the poison of the concept of Slavery. Slavery and enslavement is a very great offense, but we find that in those religious circuits people would be calling themselves as slaves without any sense of shame or indignity.
No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling dogma shall encramp my pen!
Lavey makes a solid statement about his and other Satanists' commitment to the truth. He states that he will not believe in falsehood, or support false religions or ideologies.
I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness.
Ethical Egoism: Every person has a duty to be happy and successful. Lavey and other Satanists need to accomplish that duty even if that meant having to break customs and conventions.
I raise up in stern invasion the standard of the strong!
I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard; I uplift a broad-axe, and split open his worm-eaten skull!
I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophically whited sepulchers and laugh with sardonic wrath!
Again, Lavey is challenging other religions to prove their worth. Lavey issues a personal challenge to Abrahamic God and his teachings, and describes them as being powerless and philosophically corrupt.

References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament^(*) (PDF)

In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3

Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1

2008-11-08T12:28:00.027+02:00

Introduction:
It is important to note that, although the book is titled "The Satanic Bible", it does not represent satanism fully. Satanism has no authoritative books that can be taken as absolutes in Satanism. Further more, this bible was written in the late 1960s by Anton Lavey. Anton Lavey has created what is called The First (above-ground) Church of Satan, representing satanism as a religion at par with other religions. And in his view, creating a church and a bible was necessary. Many Satanists have criticized Anton Lavey and what he has done, especially that for many Satanists, Satanism was never meant to be an organized religion.
Personally, I don't agree with everything Anton Lavey says in his book. Nonetheless, I do recognize the importance of his work. Anton Lavey's work has created a sect called "Laveyan Satanism" to differentiate them from other Satanic beliefs.

The Nine Satanic Statements:

Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary defines indulgence thusly: "To give oneself up to; not to restrain or oppose; to give free course to; to gratify by compliance; to yeild to." The dictionary definition of compulsion is: "The act of compelling or driving by a force, physical or moral; constraint of the will; (compulsory, obligatory)." In other words, indulgence implies choice, whereas compulsion indicates the lack of choice.
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

This is for the most part a criticism of prayer in other religions. Many religions advocate wasting one's life on prayer and other 'spiritual pipe dreams'. On the other hand, Laveyian Satanism advocates living the moment, in an effective manner, by taking action. After all, actions speak louder than words.

The Satanist realizes that man, and the action and reaction of the universe, is responsible for everything, and doesn't mislead himself into thinking that someone cares.
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

The Satanic Bible starts with this excerpt to show the amount of hypocrisy and self-deceit advocated by some religions, including Christianity:
"On Saturday night I would see men lusting after half-naked girls dancing at the carnival, and on Sunday morning when I was playing the organ for tentshow evangelists at the other end of the carnival lot, I would see these same men sitting in the pews with their wives and children, asking God to forgive them and purge them of carnal desires. And the next Saturday night they'd be back at the carnival or some other place of indulgence."
"I knew then that the Christian Church thrives on hypocrisy, and that man's carnal nature will out!"
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!

This is a direct contradiction to the Christian teachings of "Love your enemy"! This obviously is another act of hypocritical self-deceit that is mentioned in #3.

You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, the Satanist believes you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!
Love is one of the most intense emotions felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love.
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

This -again- is a direct contradiction to the Christian teachings of "And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other;" (Luke 6:29)^(*). This Christian teaching is flawed in every possible way. When someone hurts you or attacks you, you should not standstill welcoming for a second attack. Maybe the black slaves should have not fought for their freedom, and offered their children for slavery?! Right?! Wrong!! But thats the kind of behavior that Christianity is teaching.

He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!

"Love one another" it has been said is the supreme law, but what power made it so? Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest? Why should I not hate mine enemies - if I "love" them does that not place me at their mercy?
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

I already discussed the need to recognize and immobilize psychic vampires. (X-Ref).
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

This should be interpreted in the light of the first statement: "indulgence instead of abstinence". The moral taboo advocated by religions create compulsion through abstinence. Satanism represents the abolishment of religious taboos (aka sins).
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

A very satirical -yet very true- statement of the relation between Satan and the Christian church.

References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament^(*) (PDF)

PS: The italicized parts are explanations quoted from The Satanic Bible

In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3

The More I Live, The More I Ignore!

2008-11-05T14:12:00.007+02:00

Papa Roach in "Not Listening":

I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I learn, the more I ignore
I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I hear, the more I ignore, the more I ignore

Cause I've lost my innocence
And I'm a stranger, A life changer
I'm a man thats not afraid of danger
I walk my own path, and blaze my own trail
Because I'm not afraid to derail
I won't get in line or be a middle man
So fuck you I'll make my own plan
And I got respect and I don't neglect
The people that I really care to protect
Am I a failure if I got nothing to lose
No, I'm not a failure, I got something to prove (Full lyrics)

Drapetomania: The Mentally Ill Slaves

2008-10-22T01:16:00.011+03:00

Drapetomania is a mental illness that causes black slaves to flee captivity.

Samuel Cartwright has discovered this mental illness, and he also uncovered its cause. This disorder was a consequence of masters who made themselves too familiar with their slaves, treating them as equals. With good whipping, the slaves' unacceptable behavior can be fixed.

Fuck those mentally ill bastards! How dare they disobey their masters?! Thank you Samuel Cartwright for showing the world the right way to deal with those mentally sick slaves.

Responsible For Me

2008-10-20T01:52:00.005+03:00

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Ayn Rand

Amen.

Born Gay?

2008-10-20T00:42:00.002+03:00

Born Gay is an article that holds preliminary findings about the homosexuality and its genetic influence. This post is mainly to support the comments on this older post that suggested that homosexuality might be in fact hereditary.

In short, in one study it was found that male homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual mother, and that female homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual father.

Hello, I'm a Mac - Funny Apple Ads

2008-09-26T22:32:00.009+03:00

Nah, I'm not a Mac, I use PC. Apple started some ads campaign called: "I'm a Mac", it starts with two guys, the first one identifies himself as a Mac, and the other as a PC. The two guys represent their respective computer models and engage in conversations that are aimed to highlight the drawbacks of using MS Windows; Windows Vista in particular. No amount of description would suffice but viewing the actual ads.

This is a handpicked few of such ads:
1- Hanging windows
2- Creating a home movie
3- Spyware plague
4- Viruses
5- Vista's UAC
6- Choose a Vista

There are many other good ones, just search on Youtube with keywords: "I'm a Mac" or "Get a Mac".

While those ads are created to point out the flaws of MS Windows, it is false propaganda that apple does not suffer at least some of those flaws. For this reason, some people created spoof ads that shows that neither OS is perfect, and concludes the ad with: "Computers suck!". Two such spoofs are here and here. Other spoof ads were made to bash Macs, like this, this, and this.

But the funniest ads that were inspired by apple's ads had nothing to do with computers. One funny ad, titled "PC vs Penthouse pet - Vagina", really cracked me up. Another spoof ad with the same theme titled "PC vs Penthouse Pet - Fun". One spoof called "Mac vs Porn" is also fun to watch. Other themes included the comparison of men and women using the catch phrase "I'm a man. I'm a woman.".

But my favorite spoof is an ad for the Wii versus Playstation 3, where the Wii being portrayed as sexy, slutty girl... While the Playstation 3 is portrayed as an overweight, mild-mannered girl. "I'm a Wii" is a must-see!

Who Is Satan?! - Subjectivism And Satanism

2008-08-19T07:06:00.007+03:00

Satanism, and the figure of Satan represent many things. The common thing between all that Satan represents is the human nature. Interpretations might differ, but there are few things that most Satanists would agree on.

The most direct answer you can get is: "Satan is You, Yourself!"... And that's true... That's who Satan really is!!! While this is an accurate and precise answer, this answer is to most people confusing at best!! Further yet, the statement "Satan is You" is a conclusion - the final answer, you might call it. So instead of this short answer, I will explain how this statement has been reached.

Philosophically speaking, Satanism is the bridge between Nihilism (Non-existence) and Rationalism (Existence of Self). Nihilism is an Objective philosophy, while Rationalism is a Subjective philosophy... Satanism is simply a way to be both subjective and objective at the same time. Okay, this is still confusing, I'll try to elaborate.

Can you objectively say that you exist?! Can you prove that you exist?! Can you logically justify your needs?! The answer to the above three questions is NO!! The concept of "Self" cannot be formulated by objective means. Can you make us a mathematical formula that tell us who you are?! What are we anyways?!

The above reasoning would put anyone in the corner!! So what if someone tells you: "Okay, I am gonna shoot you, rape your mother, and take all your money... You don't exist! Actually, neither any of us exists, so why would you care anyways!!" - This sure would put any philosopher who advocates pure objectivity in a tight corner!!

Obviously, its irrational to give up your life (and personal interest in general) just for a small game of words, isn't it?!

The solution is simple. We need to first understand that through the above reasoning, defending yourself and not defending yourself are BOTH objectively irrelevant. Objectively speaking, it doesn't matter if you die - And it doesn't matter if you live, either! So whatever you do is a valid outcome. For this reason, subjectivity is valid. Since both answers are valid through objectivity, we create a new system that we judge our decisions by. This system simply admits that you exist, and that you have needs, and satisfying those needs is a favorable outcome. [This solution is similar to the solution of justifying knowledge within skepticism]

Through admitting subjectivity, you admit your own existence, and is able to achieve Rationalism. And satanism is basically, being yourself through the understanding of the path between Nihilism and Rationalism. Since Satanism is admitting your own existence, then Satan is You!! Because without Satanism the word "I" would not have meaning.

Apart from the philosophical aspects, one the most important features of humans is responsibility. Once a person admits responsibility, he would automatically understand the other things Satan represents.

Knowledge for example is a responsibility. Humans are responsible to create a good life for themselves. Knowledge is the best tool to create a good life. Consider all the benefits of knowledge... With knowledge we conquer all life's problems, we create tools to help us solve problems.

Humans can be both good and evil, and so is Satan. But Satanists (in general) prefer the naked truth... They don't like disguises. They don't like to make up stories to answer questions they don't know the answers for. They don't want to behave in a manner dictated on them by hypocritical systems, including -among others- religious institutes that advocates human-made rules as God-sent rules.

Google CodeJam: My Solutions

2008-07-18T03:39:00.008+03:00

Google CodeJam is a coding contest for programmers... The first round (Qualification round) was today, and I joined the fun [geeky fun - mind you]. The contest can be found here, and included three problems.

I published my solutions to all three problems at this location.

The first two problems were really easy. The third problem was a bit of a challenge because it required going back to geometry and trigonometry. The problem descriptions can be found at the contest location provided above.

My New Desktop Computer

2008-06-21T01:48:00.016+03:00

Recently I got a new desktop computer - an impressive new computer to say the least. Its specifications are:
Processor: Core2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz - 8MB L2 cache)
Motherboard: Intel Q35
RAM: 8GB DDR2 @667MHz
Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT w/ 512MB GDDR3 Dedicated RAM
Hard Drive: 500GB SATA @7200rpm
Monitor: 20" widescreen LCD

The total cost of the computer was 1300 JDs (around $1700)... I based it on an offer of a computer priced at 990 JDs and added a few upgrades that made the sum 1300 JDs. The first upgrade was the GeForce 9600GT priced at 215 JDs, the original offer contained GeForce 8400GS priced at 80 JDs. While GeForce 8400GS is a very good graphics card, but for an impressive computer, we need an impressive graphics card... I recommend this graphics card to anyone considering buying a new PC. Sure enough, that isn't the best graphics card... But for the big cash pockets, there is the GeForce 9800 GX2 (not sure about the price, but expect it to be around 500 JDs - Thats if you found it anywhere in Jordan) or even having two such cards in SLI mode for the ultimate performance (1000 JDs, OMG you can buy a computer at the price of this setup of graphics cards!).

The other upgrade was the 8GB DDR2 RAM. The original offer was 2GB DDR2 RAM, but I thought that 8GB would be best. The reason is simple: DDR2 RAM prices are at the lowest point they will get! The other choice was RAM DDR3, but consider this: 1GB of DDR2 costs 20 JDs, while 1GB of DDR3 costs 124 JDs!! So I bought 8GB DDR2 at a price slightly higher than 1GB of DDR3...

There was another upgrade that I wished to have, but I couldn't find it anywhere!! In honesty, the Jordanian market for electronics sucks... The prices are higher than they should, and the good quality equipment cannot be found (even if you were willing to pay more). Consider the GeForce 9800 GX2, sure its expected price would be around 500 JDs, but you will not find it anywhere! Even if you were willing to pay 500 JDs for a graphics card, there is no where you can get it... Thats pathetic! Even the GeForce 9600 GT was really tough to find.... I went to many computer stores, and only found it in one store... I almost lost hope of finding the GeForce 9600 GT, and when I found it, it was like I found a gem!

Back to the upgrade that I couldn't find, its the processor... The best processor that can be found in Jordan is the Core2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz - 8MB L2 cache)... Better models were no where to be found, although there are models that run at 3.2GHz!! The processor I bought was priced at 230JD, I was willing to pay a bit more for a higher clock speed, but that was a gem not to be found! Again there are processors that cost around $1200 (around 900 JDs) which is the Core2 Extreme QX9770, but thats beyond the Jordanian market!

All in all, I am pretty much satisfied about my new computer. I was especially satisfied that it got a Windows Experience Rating of 5.5 (the maximum being 5.9). All my components are rated at 5.9, except for the RAM which is rated at 5.5 (probably the maximum ratings go to the DDR3 RAM).

Finally, I installed Windows Vista 64-bit Edition w/ SP1. It worked perfectly fine. I am glad that my transition to the 64-bit computing was flawless as I want to be one of the early adopters of the 64-bit computing as I believe it is an important advancement in the computers world. Any computer with a "Core2" processor is 64-bit capable. And for those who have that, I recommend that they try the 64-bit OS, and move permanently to 64-bit if things work out fine (and it probably will).

32-bit computing is almost over. It reached its limit! I think that in two years 64-bit will become mainstream... 32-bit OS'es and computers can handle a maximum of 2GB to 3.5GB of RAM depending on the specifications of the computer. With 2GB of RAM being common these days, and RAM requirements doubling almost every 1.5 years, this means that 4GB of RAM should be pretty common in a year or so... But 32-bits can't handle all that RAM, so computers will have to move to 64-bit computing. After that, 8GB of RAM will be due, which would mark the end of 32-bit computing. In short, it is expected that 8GB of RAM to become common within 3 years, and moving to 64-bit will be necessary before that time!

Supporting more RAM is not the only advantage of 64-bit computing. But for the average computer users, RAM requirements will be the driving factor that makes 64-bit computing popular...

Homosexuality And Darwinism

2008-04-27T08:16:00.006+03:00

The other day I was thinking of how homosexuality came into existence, and whether or not homosexuality might be genetically influenced. The idea is that if homosexuality was nothing more than an anomaly, you would expect it to vanish, or at least be a very rare case. But the matter of fact is that homosexuality is common, and it would be very hard to suggest that it's an anomaly.

One idea that came through my head was that social pressure was probably a very influential factor that sustained homosexuality. Thats to say, social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations. Following this line of thought, it seems that the easiest way to eliminate homosexuality is to allow guilt-free homosexual activity, since this would simply decrease the survival value of the homosexual "gene".

But again, saying that homosexuality is an anomaly might not be wise. Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Those animals probably don't face the same kind of social pressure that humans exert.

This evidence has challenged Darwin's "sexual selection" theory [NOT "survival of the fittest"]. Darwin simply viewed sexuality to be motivated by reproduction. But strong evidence shows otherwise. The truth is, as humans, most sexual encounters are not reproduction related, and don't fit Darwin's description. Consider this:

Darwin had very specific sex roles for males and females. He wrote that females are docile and dainty and always prefer mates who are attractive and vigorous. But the world doesn't work like that. A quick look at humans tells you that women don't always prefer musclebound models. It's really obvious, but women choose all kinds of men as mates, and very rarely do those choices have to do with exhibited traits, like the peacock's tail or a stag's antlers, that Darwin thought represented "good genes."

In fact, the whole good-gene idea is suspect. The idea that a female could look at a male and tell by his appearance how good his genes are and how those genes are going to play out in 20 years is extremely far-fetched. Scientists have been trying to prove this idea experimentally, and it never bears out. It doesn't bear out, because not even supercomputers can offer that kind of predictability. (source)

In short, I think anyone who would say that homosexuality is an anomaly, or would think that homosexuality has no survival value, is shown to be incorrect by evidence from our reality. Homosexuality has gained ground in many aspects of life, including the political arena... This can't be an anomaly that we are talking about! Homosexuality should have a function in humanity that caused it to have such strong presence, and denying that is being blind to the fact of its influence...

PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted

Meta-Definition

2008-04-16T01:02:00.012+03:00

Suppose we define a horse's tail to be a leg. How many legs does a horse have?

This question is part of a joke, but I decided to turn it into a real question... What do you think the answer should be?!

Read More:
This question is part of a joke that goes like this:

A mathematician, scientist, and engineer are each asked: "Suppose we define a horse's tail to be a leg. How many legs does a horse have?" The mathematician answers "5"; the scientist "1"; and the engineer says "But you can't do that!"

The joke is basically to ridicule engineers, as they are stereotyped to not have a great command of the concepts of hypothesizes and inferencing. But the joke includes another implicit stereotyping of the difference between mathematicians and scientists.

In the field of mathematics, new definitions and theories are usually inclusive of all the definitions and theories that preceded it. Hence, a mathematician would consider a new definition to be inclusive of previous definitions. There is actually another joke about this specific idea:

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Hence, the mathematician's answer is 5!

In the field of science, usually new theories replace older theories, thats why the scientist's answer assumes that the new definition abolishes the older definition. Hence the scientist answered 1!

My answer to this question is "5"... It was actually my first reaction, and also after some thought I think its most convincing. The argument is that: The question doesn't specify whether or not the conventional concept of a leg is still called a leg. First of all, we can agree that the question does not specify; Which is -after all- why the answer is debatable. But the first rule that comes to the mind is that the best answer is the one with the least problematic assumptions. As a rule of the thumb, when something is not explicitly stated to have changed, then leave it as it is. We shouldn't assume something to change when the question doesn't explicitly state that it was changed.
[+] Show\Hide

Update: Added an explained answer

Plagiarism

2008-04-10T18:23:00.003+03:00

"Well, if you want to get technical, all writing is plagiarism because you're using words that already exist!"

Sandi / Daria

Originality is overrated!

Sexual Misconduct: Rape And Exploitation

2008-04-05T08:12:00.016+03:00

The Pillars of Proper Sexual Conduct:
Sexuality is an important aspect of human life. Many people seek sexual activity in several ways most of which are natural and of proper conduct. Regardless of the details of the sexual activity, consent is an important pillar of proper sexual conduct. While most of the sexual misconducts are known to many people -say, forceful rape- there are other sexual misconducts that are less obvious. As I always say, awareness is the first line of defense.

Lets first define our first pillar: Every person has the legitimate right to join any sexual activity where all parties that are directly involved in the act are consenting to that act.

Our second pillar is: Any sexual activity that includes direct participants who are not consenting to that act, would be an illegitimate act.

A good system should grantee both the first and second pillars.

Legitimate Sexual Activities:
Here we can define two types of legitimate sexual activities:
1- Positively consensual sexual activities: Where all participants are consenting to the sexual activity, and are involved for a positive will to join the sexual activity. This would include the most common scenario, where two or more people are involved in a sexual activity for any of several reasons including -among others-: Love, lust, and enjoyment.

2- Negatively consensual sexual activities: Where all participants are consenting to the sexual activity, but one or more of the participants don't necessarily want to join the sexual activity - and are involved to complete a transaction, or abide terms of a contract. The most common scenario for this is prostitution, where the prostitute is consenting to the sexual activity, but the sexual activity is not a goal, but rather a side-effect to a trade. This would also include consensual engagement in sexual activity with a partner who may not want sex at the time, but does it to satisfy their partner's needs.

Illegitimate Sexual Activities:
Having identified the two possible legitimate forms of sexual activity, lets look more closely at the illegitimate forms of sexual activity.

1- Forceful rape: The type where physical force is used to force one party into sexual activity against their consent. It includes two types:
1a- Blitz rape: Being raped by a stranger. The type of rape most people know, and is usually punishable by most legal systems.
1b- Date rape: Being raped by an acquaintance (ie. someone who is not a stranger). This type is usually less known among most people. This type is not strictly applicable to dates - Don't let the name fool you. It is not necessary whether or not this type of rape is preceded -or not preceded- by consensual sexual activity. Prior sexual activity is irrelevant. This type of rape is sometimes not reported by the victims because of its confusing nature to human emotions, especially when prior sexual activity was established. A special case of "Date rape" is "Spouse rape".
1b'- Spousal rape: Being raped by a spouse (or someone with whom the victim has established a medium-term to long-term relationship with). This type of rape is common, yet is usually not reported -especially where women are the victims-!! Two factors depreciate the act of reporting spousal rape. The first reason is that in many cases the victims don't realize that they have been raped. Some women think that just because their husband has earned their socially imposed right to sexual activity -marriage that is- that that man has the right to engage in sexual activity at all times including when she is not consenting. This is obviously a fallacy. No one should be able to force anyone into sex, even if they are their spouses. The second factor for not reporting is that law enforcement in certain countries are uncooperative in those cases. Law enforcement has at times abstained from enforcing rape laws between married couples. [X-Ref: Law enforcement abstaining from homicide laws in "honor killings"]

2- Non-forceful rape (aka sexual exploitation): Non-consenting parties are directly involved where explicit consent is not given, and physical force is not used.
This includes many types including -among others-:
2a- Drug facilitated rape: Several types of drugs are used for this technique, including -among others-: Drugs that cause unconsciousness, drugs that cause hyper sexual activity, drugs that subvert rational decision-making (eg. Alcohol). Sexual activity where the participant is unconsently unconscious is illegitimate. Also, sexual activity where the participant's consent is unconsently subverted, is also illegitimate.
2b- Imposing rape: Using psychological or social pressure to subvert consent. This is the type that is most challenging to identify or handle. Several types of psychological tricks -including reverse psychology- can be used to manipulate the victim into sexual activity. For example: "You should have sex with me, to prove that you love me.", "Don't expect me to stay around if you are not willing to satisfy my needs.", or "Well, if you don't want to have sex with me that's fine. I get the message!"... etc, are all methods to impose sexual activity to a person who otherwise would not engage in sexual activity. Sure, the wording may not be as explicit as the examples I gave, and may include implying instead of declarations. Social pressure is sometimes used to subvert the victim's consent into sexual activity. [The opposite of this may also happen, where social pressure is used to subvert consent into abstaining from sexual activity.] [X-Ref: An example of using social pressure to subvert consent (although not in a sexual context) is demonstrated in The Observer's fictional story]
2c- Blackmail rape: Using the method of blackmailing to subvert consent. This technique can be used in several ways. This method usually includes a forceful bargain of not disclosing certain information in return for sexual favors. Two versions of blackmail rape are -disturbingly- common in sexually conservative societies (like Jordan!). The first scenario goes like this: One participant of a previous socially unapproved sexual activity blackmails one or more of the other participants into sexual activity for not disclosing details of the previous sexual activity. Or in more specific terms, a guy who has slept with a girl would threaten to tell about the sexual affair if the girl does not continue the sexual relationship. The girl would have to continue the sexual activity for the fear of honor killing. A second scenario goes like this: A person witnesses a socially unapproved sexual activity, and blackmails one or more of the participants into sexual activity for not disclosing his knowledge of that sexual activity. Or in more specific terms: A guy walks into a guy and a girl participating in pre-marital sexual activity, and threatens to tell about this affair if the girl does not do him some sexual favors. The guy who witnessed the sexual activity may -or may not- do this with participation of the guy involved in the sexual activity. Sometimes a guy may try to make a favor to another guy by giving time and place details of a sexual affair, so that the other guy walk into the scene and practically force the victim to give the other guy sexual favors. Again, the victim has to comply for the fear of honor killing.

While it may not be easy to avoid most forms of rape, awareness of "imposing rape" and -to a lesser extent- of "blackmail rape" can help avoid those types of rape. Imposing rape cannot always be protected legally. That's to say, no law could exist to prevent certain patterns of imposing rape. The only tool for protection from certain patterns of imposing rape is awareness - and no other type of protection could be provided in those cases. Manipulation using psychological or social pressure does not always involve any criminal activity of any kind. On the other hand, blackmail rape does involve criminal activity, but would most probably not be reported for the fear of disclosure of the information that was used in the blackmailing procedure. For example, a woman who was intimidated by honor killing would unlikely report the blackmail rape for the fear of honor killing.

It might be argued that "blackmail rape" is a subtype of "negatively consensual sexual activity", and hence can be seen as a legitimate form of sexual activity. It might be argued that the "bargain" made in blackmail rape turns it into some form of a trade. There is an important factor that differentiates a trade from blackmailing. A trade is consensual and opt-in. Blackmailing is forceful. For example: A prostitute can at will provide sexual favors for money. She consensually makes the deal, and can refuse to make that deal. On the other hand, blackmailing includes a threat (and threatening people is a criminal activity). The victim of a blackmail rape has no choice to opt-out.

Hard-to-Classify Sexual Activities:
Finally, I wish to point out some of the "gray" sexual conducts which cannot be easily classified as legitimate or illegitimate due to subtle details of consent.
Drunk sex: Having consensual sexual activity with a drunk person. Similar to "drug facilitated rape", where "drug facilitated rape" is a purposeful act to subvert consent, while drunk sex is only taking advantage of improper decision-making ability of a person. That's to say that the other participant did not subvert the drunk person into drinking, or manipulate that drunk person to sexual activity. The drunk person is considered as not in their right mind to make the decision, and hence acting on that consent can be problematic. A good solution to this problem would be asking for consent before drinking. For example, asking: "If you get drunk and start to want to engage in sexual activity, should we proceed?"... Asking this question -or another version of the question to the same effect- would make drunk sex unambiguously legitimate.
Child abuse (with consent): Having consensual sexual activity with a minor. Most legal systems would criminalize sexual activities with minors - regardless of consent. The argument is that a child cannot give consent. While being different from "drunk sex", it is argued that a child is not in the right mind to make the decision. There are several problems that put child abuse in the gray section. Unlike drunk sex, where it is possible to solve it by asking for consent prior to the drinking, there are no similar solutions. The second problem is that based on the first pillar of this discussion, every person has the right to participate in consensual sexual activities. Denying a child from his right to consent is dubious [X-Ref: The problem of Age Discrimination]. It is very problematic to simply rule out that a child cannot give consent, or rule out that a child is not in the right mind to make a decision. It is important that we preserve the second pillar (prohibiting non-consensual sexual activities), but it is equally important that we preserve the first pillar (every person's right to join consensual sexual activities). A good solution is hard to make, but I would suggest a combination of sexual education to minors who are willing to engage in sexual activities, and a way for case-by-case assessment, that would assess whether or not the minor understands the decision he is making. Last, but not least, parents should take better responsibility to educate their children about sexuality, so that they can make informed judgment about their choices.

Why Do I Blog?

2008-04-02T18:51:00.005+03:00

I have been tagged. The proposed question is a tough one, with many dimensions... I will try to summarize:
- Blogging is enjoyable
- Good way to pass time
- A reference for me about myself and the change of ideas, method of presentation, and feelings in time...
- Documenting myself for people who know me, or will know me
- Practicing organizing my thoughts coherently, instead of them being chaotically unrelated bursts of thought in my head
- Documenting the details of my personal religion and political thoughts
- Expressing my ideas with the style I see fit
- Egotism: The ideas presented will be available worldwide, which reflects a feeling of self-importance.
- Peer reviews: Allowing other people to criticize my ideas, which will increase the quality of my thoughts. Thinking without feedback would mean certain ideas don't undergo critical thinking. Documentation of ideas and being criticized by other people will force me to rethink of my position in many aspects.
- Increase knowledge of people to issues of interest to me
- Create an atmosphere where intelligent ideas are exchanged

These are some of the reasons that I blog, listed such that more important reasons come first.

Expressions And Meanings - Part 4: Conclusion

2008-04-01T20:19:00.006+03:00

We have already disqualified some of the interpretations about what Timmy [of part 1] is saying. Since we established what cannot be said about Timmy's beliefs from an observer's POV, the question is: What can an observer say?

One suggested answer would be this: "Timmy says: '666 is a prime number', which is a false statement when interpreted in English language." - Notice that when we qualify a sentence with a language we can judge its truthfulness and falseness, but without a reference language this judgment is impossible. Thats because language is relativistic. And as previously discussed, a relativistic value is inseparable from its reference.

Since -in most cases- the meaning is the goal, rather than the expression, it is important to express ideas in pre-specified reference language. In short, without language interpreting an expression becomes impossible. For example, if you are reading this article without assuming that it is written in English language, understanding it becomes impossible.

Since defining language is important, there need to be certain references that explain the terminology of language. These references cannot be formalized, because of the relativistic nature of language. But since conventions need to be established to pave the path for communication, such conventions are established. The most commonly agreed references that define languages are usually called "Dictionaries". Dictionaries are references that are established to define lingual terminology.

While terminology can be redefined in sub-cultures [that is a group of people can agree that certain terms mean something different that the conventional terminology], this practice hinders mainstream understanding of the language. In fact, this practice can be viewed as a form of encryption where the parties that have knowledge of the encryption scheme can decrypt the message.

For this reason, any communicator needs to establish a reference language for the expressions. For example, it is a good practice for a blogger who wishes for his articles to be understood worldwide to write in a language that is known worldwide and to conform to the conventions proposed for it by the dictionaries that are established for that language. Another example is standards-compliance of the internet or documents, as proprietary formats can lead to problems like vendor lock-in or vendor lock-out.

In this series:
Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction
Expressions And Meanings - Part 2: Elaboration
Expressions And Meanings - Part 3: Linguistic Relativism
Expressions And Meanings - Part 4: Conclusion

Expressions And Meanings - Part 3: Linguistic Relativism

2008-03-25T21:01:00.011+02:00

But a big problem arises: Is there any concrete argument to say that Timmy [see part 1] expressed his ideas incorrectly?! Not really!! The matter of fact is that all languages are conventions. Thats to say, there is no good reason that the utterance "prime number" means [a number that is divisible only by two different numbers: itself and one]... This expression is valid to express that idea only because it was agreed that this utterance means that concept. There is no innate value to that utterance, or any concrete basis for the connection.

Hence, the judgment that Timmy expressed his idea in an incorrect manner is baseless, because there is no expression that is more correct for an idea. Thats true, but this is a fine line, and we need to pay attention to the difference between an expression and meaning.

Lets get back to the observer's POV. Timmy says: "666 is a prime number". From the observer's POV we have no access to the meaning, only the expression. So we must now attempt to interpret the utterance! But an expression can mean anything! Absolutely anything! If we don't interpret the utterance with the assumption of a particular language (for example, English) the utterance can basically mean anything! So in order to have a practical value for an expression, we must have some assumptions about the language this expression is constructed with. So, simply said, to interpret an expression we must have a reference language.

Can an observer say: "Timmy believes that 666 is a prime number. He also believes that prime numbers mean cool numbers." - Not really! We have already established that saying: "Timmy believes that 666 is a prime number" is not correct. And saying: "He also believes that prime numbers mean cool numbers" is again incorrect. He does not believe that the concept of primeness and coolness are synonymous. He only thinks that the utterance of 'prime number' and 'cool number' are synonymous. So when we say: "Timmy believes that 666 is a prime number", this is interpreted in our language not his, because its us who are making that utterance.

Consider the smart answer that Richard provided: I should have stipulated that Timmy intended to use his words in the same way as the rest of his speech community does (so when we tell him what the rest of us mean by 'prime number', he will respond, 'oops, my mistake').

That answer signifies an important realization: There is no right way or wrong way to express an idea, except in one case: When that expression has the goal of being correctly interpreted, and to communicate the idea that it means.

So we have two cases:

The speaker is NOT concerned how his expression is understood. The expression is taken to have value in and of itself. Here there are no qualifiers to the rightness or wrongness of an expression.
The speaker intends to convey an idea. The expression not the goal, the idea (meaning) is the goal. Here, it becomes important to express the idea in an understandable manner.

Then again, if we refer to what we have already established in Part 1, which is that meaning is the goal of an expression, we can say that most speakers fall in the case numbered (2) where it is important to express an idea in an understandable manner.

In this series:
Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction
Expressions And Meanings - Part 2: Elaboration
Expressions And Meanings - Part 3: Linguistic Relativism
Expressions And Meanings - Part 4: Conclusion

Slaves Until Things Change

2008-03-21T05:32:00.010+02:00

This post was provoked by a fictional story about a fictional girl character who is a spinster. The theme [-that is relevant to this post-] is that this girl lives in a conservative society where pre-marital relationships are taboo. This girl is disconnected from the male-world for too long that she got to an age where she is no longer marriage material. This girl feels that she has been unfairly made into an outcast. At some point she says (and I quote): "I protected their honor. I played with their rules. I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough." - This sentence provoked me by what I would consider extreme stupidity - the thing that I consider the greatest sin of all sins.

No one would respect an "ass-kisser"!! If someone spends his\her life trying to play by other people's rules, they become slaves. It doesn't need a genius to figure that the rules people make are self-interested. Each person makes the rules that serve them, and if someone else plays by those rules, they become slaves to the person/system who made those rules!!

Sure everyone loves to have a slave, but no-one respects a slave. And thats exactly whats going on: People make some rules about how a "nice" person behaves... And someone decides to be the "nice" person... And they get all the compliments... In case of our fictional character, it's the girl who is too busy being nice, because she is being called "honorable", "pure", and "chaste"... Or in other words: A good slave! A good slave who nobody wants to do anything with, except to keep her a slave for as long as possible!!

This fictional character was too busy being a humble slave that she forgets about herself. She thinks that when people applaud her, they applaud her for being a good person, when in fact they applaud her for being an ignorant person and a good slave! And not until later in her life the she understood the hypocrisy of the system that she was indulging in...

She argues: "I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough.", oblivious to the fact that working hard to make everyone happy is exactly the reason why she has never been good enough... No slave is ever good enough, there are always more things that a slave needs to do to please his\her master! Heck, the argument itself seems like an "ass-kissing" attempt...

This spinster girl is also taken as a model for the topic of suppression of women. If we go the sexists' way, and model men and women as systems in and of themselves, we may say that each system has its own self-interesting rules that each wishes to enforce. It is generally thought that the men's system of rules are dominant. Under this assumption -which I actually don't think actually holds- it is said that women are suppressed by men. If men were suppressing women, for all I know, they should continue doing so, until women wake up from their nap! Its like a slave humbly asking his master to set him free... But this slave won't get his freedom by begging for it, but rather by fighting for it!

But in truth, this is not a case of one gender dominating the other... Each and everyone of us -who wishes to be free- needs to fight... No slave is set free by a begging! It has been said: "People are born free!" which is true, the question is: "Why did they sell themselves to slavery?!"

It's easier said than done, but I think we should stop for a second and ask ourselves: Do I want to be an ass-kisser?! Will ass-kissing get me anywhere beside being eventually neglected?!

Viva La Revolution!

PS: This post does NOT reflect the original character in the aforementioned story. The character was purposefully taken out-of-context for the purpose of making this post!
PS: Here is an alternative link to the story

Expressions And Meanings - Part 2: Elaboration

2008-03-14T16:06:00.007+02:00

Going back to Timmy [see part 1], Timmy says (utters): "666 is a prime number"... What he means to say is: "666 is a cool number"... Lets take things from an observer's POV [POV: point of view]: When hearing Timmy saying "666 is a prime number", it is obvious that Timmy is saying something wrong. From an observer's POV, we have no knowledge to qualify the beliefs of Timmy as true or false, simply because we can't go inside Timmy's head to learn what he means, we only know what he said, and he said something that is obviously wrong!

Can an observer say: "Timmy believes that he believes that 666 is a prime number".... As tempting as it seems to say that, this is not true. Read what the aforementioned blog entry has to say:

What of Timmy's meta-beliefs? He might not have any, if he's very young, but let's suppose that he's aware of himself as a believing agent. What does he think he believes? Jack suggests to me the following: "Timmy believes that he believes that 666 is a prime number". But this attribution seems mistaken for exactly the same reasons. Timmy lacks the concept prime number, so he can't have any (even meta-) beliefs involving it. And nor can he have any de re beliefs about primeness (under whatever guise), because he lacks any alternative grasp of the property in question. He's not capable of having primeness feature in his mental content at all. (source)

Timmy does NOT believe that 666 is a prime number. He says what would conventionally suggest that he does, but he doesn't mean what he is saying. He believes that 666 is a cool number. His mistake is that he thinks that the utterance "666 is a prime number" expresses the idea that 666 is a cool number, oblivious to that the utterance "666 is a prime number" conventionally means that 666 is divisible by only itself and 1.... He may and may not believe that 666 is divisible only by itself and 1, but his utterance is simply unmeant to this concept.

In this series:
Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction
Expressions And Meanings - Part 2: Elaboration
Expressions And Meanings - Part 3: Linguistic Relativism
Expressions And Meanings - Part 4: Conclusion

Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction

2008-03-11T10:00:00.026+02:00

In this series, I will ponder on case-scenario suggested by a fellow blogger:

Suppose young Timmy mistakenly takes 'prime number' to be roughly synonymous with 'cool number'. So he goes around saying things like '666 is a prime number'. Does he believe that 666 is a prime number? Presumably not. He certainly doesn't have a de dicto belief involving the concept prime number, since he lacks this concept (he associates the words, 'prime number', with a different concept entirely). Nor does he have any de re beliefs about primes, i.e. beliefs which talk about this property under a different guise: he does not believe, for example, that 666 is divisible only by itself and 1. What Timmy believes is that 666 is a cool number (or, more likely yet, that '666' is a cool numeral), and he mistakenly takes the sentence '666 is a prime number' to express this belief. (source)

As we can see an utterance (an expression) has a meaning behind it. Usually, meanings are the goal and expressions are merely means to achieve that goal. Thats why, it is important that when we hear an expression, we analyze it and start digging for the meaning behind that expression.

The problem is, as humans we are incapable of communicating meanings, we are only capable of communicating expressions. This realization leads to The Problem of Representation (aka representational skepticism) that I have discussed before.

Lingual skepticism and other forms of skepticism like brains in a vat skepticism, and The Matrix skepticism are closely related. They all go around the limitations of empiricism, and the limitations of our senses to grasp reality.

In this series:
Expressions And Meanings - Part 1: Introduction
Expressions And Meanings - Part 2: Elaboration
Expressions And Meanings - Part 3: Linguistic Relativism
Expressions And Meanings - Part 4: Conclusion

God Is Watching

2008-03-07T21:22:00.005+02:00

If you masturbate, you must learn that masturbation is an abomination, and the "Veggie Fables" have the right song for you:

God is watching everything you do
When you get undressed or take a shower
When you touch yourself for hour after hour
God is watching everything you do

And He thinks you're a nasty, naughty nympho slut!
You sinful filthy whore you're going to hell!
Your flesh will burn, your bones will churn
Your soul will be torn asunder

You wretched heathen heretic, burn in hell
..... For eternity!
So you better remember!
God is watching everything you do! (source)

My Philosophy

2008-03-03T00:11:00.003+02:00

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Ayn Rand

Amen to that!

The Law Of Non-Contradiction

2008-02-28T11:57:00.017+02:00

In logic, the law of non-contradiction is an important principle. This law states that no instance in the same respect can be in two or more contradicting states. Contradicting states can be defined as mutually exclusive states, or disjoint states.

In boolean logic, the not operator, -also called the negation operator- is defined as the operator which evaluates true as false, and false as true, where true and false are by definition -in the context of boolean logic- two contradicting states.

The law of non-contradiction is a concept that holds several types of logic from dissolving into trivial systems. Even higher forms of logical systems like set theory and mathematics would dissolve into trivial systems if the law of non-contradiction is not taken as part of its axioms.

Now I will try to demonstrate why the law of non-contradiction is important. First in logic. And for people who are not familiar with logic notation, I will then demonstrate it using mathematics. And finally, the importance of the law of non-contradiction for language and communication of ideas in general.

In Logic:
~: The logical negation
^: Logical AND
v: Logical OR

The law of non-contradiction states:
p: any statement
p ^ ~p = False

Denying the law of non-contradiction:
j: is a statement that defies the law of non-contradiction
j ^ ~j = True

The law of non-contradiction prohibits the existence of such statement as j. Lets see what happens if a statement like j actually existed:

p
= p v False
= p v ~True
= p v ~(j ^ ~j) ; Denying the law of non-contradiction
= p v (~j v j) ; By DeMorgan's rule
= j v True ; Tautology
= True ; Tautology

~p
= ~p v False
= ~p v ~True
= ~p v ~(j ^ ~j)
= ~p v (~j OR j)
= ~p v True
= True

The result is that all logical statements are evaluated as True. Even a statement and its contradiction became both true.

In Mathematics:
The law of non-contradiction would say that two different numbers are different.
IF a is always not equal to b THEN a is never equal to b

Lets say that there exists only one exception to this rule. Lets say: "1=2". Denying the law of non-contradiction would mean that a statement like "1=2" can be true. The law of non-contradiction prohibits such statements.

Lets now deny the law of non-contradiction and say: "1=2".... Now we can simply prove that any number is equal to any other number!
Consider this:

1=2 ; premise

5
= 2 + 3
= 1 + 3 ; premise
= 4 ; Result 1 (5=4)

20
= 5 + 2 + 13
= 4 + 2 + 13 ; Result 1 (5=4)
= 4 + 1 + 13 ; premise
= 18 ; Result 2 (20=18)
= 2 + 16
= 1 + 16 ; premise
= 17 ; Result 3 (20=17) and (18=17)

0
= 1 - 1
= 2 - 1
= 1 ; Result 4 (0=1)

Practically, by having ONLY ONE such an exception to the law of non-contradiction, as "1=2"... We can show that ALL other numbers are equal to one another! Not only for integer, but also for any other number. Observe:

For rational numbers:
0.5
= 10 / 20

We can prove that 10=200, and that 20=13

So we get:
0.5
= 10 / 20
= 200 / 13

For irrational numbers:
SQR: Square root
SQR 20
= SQR 50
= SQR 901

Now someone might say, that the operator of addition (+) is the problem, and that saying "20 = 1 + 19" is the problem. Fine, if we can't do it with addition, we do it with some other operators. Observe:

Using multiplication:
6
= 2 * 3
= 1 * 3 ; premise
= 3

Using power:
^: The power operator
16
= 4 ^ 2
= 4 ^ 1 ; premise
= 4

The end result, that to protect mathematics from dissolving by one such instance where the law of non-contradiction does not hold, you must deny numerous other operators that can be used to dissolve the system, including -among others-: Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, powers, logarithms... etc.

In short, the whole concept of algebraic manipulation needs to be abandoned to hold the system from dissolving into a trivial system.

This would mean heaven for lazy students who hate math and science. Because this means that any answer they put in their exams is necessarily correct!! All students now get 20 out of 20. And its no problem if you get 0 out of 20, because 20 equals 0! So if you are a lazy student, I suggest you start a campaign with the slogan "Say NO to the law of non-contradiction!"...

Communication and Language:
Denying the law of non-contradiction makes communication of ideas very difficult. To deny the law of non-contradiction is to say that: "To say something, and to negate that same something are two compatible views"...

Funny dialogs can result from this assertion. Consider this dialog, between two people: A and B... Hegel is a philosopher who -is said to have- denied the law of non-contradiction, and this fictional dialog was assembled to demonstrate how problematic this denial is.

A: Are you still a follower of Hegel?

B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P.

A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators!

B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic.

A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P.

B: Yes, I guess they're compatible.

A: No they aren't!

B: Yes they are!

A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P.

B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused.

A: And you're also not getting confused, right?

source: Philosophy, et cetera Blog (link)

Quantum Mechanics And Classical Physics: The Limit Relation

2008-02-21T21:09:00.004+02:00

I am not qualified to discuss neither classical physics nor modern physics (aka quantum mechanics) but I have some knowledge that I would like to share that should make things easier to understand to make things clearer to an "average Joe".

In short: Classical Physics is the limit to infinity of Quanta in Quantum Mechanics. Thats in a nutshell.

For people who are not familiar with the mathematical concept of limits consider this example:

Say, F(X)=1-5*10^-X (one minus five times ten to the power of minus X). In this example:
F(0)=-4
F(1)=0.5
F(2)=0.95
F(3)=0.995
F(4)=0.9995
F(infinity)=1

This is the concept of a limit, notice that for small values of X, say between 0 and 3 the value of the function changes dramatically. But from the values of 4 and above the change is negligible. Consider how much F(4) is close to one!!

So in Quantum Mechanics the formulas are more complex than Classical Physics, but when the number of Quanta is large, certain parts of the equation can be discarded since they are negligible. Just like how in "F(X)=1-5*10^-X" we can discard the "-5*10^-X" since its almost zero for large values of X. The concept of limits apply when moving from Quantum Mechanics to Classical Physics.

Another hot topic is the probabilistic model of Quantum Mechanics. While we cannot be certain of the outcome of Quanta in overly simplistic scenarios, this does not apply to large numbers of Quanta. Its the same concept of limits.

Consider the following scenario:

Say X is a variable that initially has the value of 0. We throw a die, and we add the value of the die to X. So lets see what happens to X after 3 throws.
Say, the outcome of the die was: 3 / 3 / 6
X=3+3+6=12
Another experiment has this outcome: 4 / 1 / 2
X=4+1+2=7
Yet a third with this outcome: 5 / 6 / 4
X=5+6+4=15

It seems that X is different for each of these trials... This is an analogy to what happens with Quanta. Each Quanta produces a different stochastic (random) behavior. And the behavior of a system of Quanta is the sum of all the behavior of Quanta at that moment.

Consider now the above example with a billion throws. While the outcome of 3 trials might have large differences in each experiment, as the number of trials increases the error margin decreases. The the most basic property of probability. The more the trials the more stable results you will get.

In the above example, I can say that the average outcome of the die is (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5
So in one billion trials, the outcome should be very close to 3.5 billions.

The conclusion is that although when we consider Quanta in isolation they might produce diverse results, studying large numbers of Quanta is much easier and easily predictable with high confidence.

It is worth noting that one proton contains: 2.26*10^23 Quanta!! As you can see, even a single subatomic part contains a huge number of Quanta!! So even for a single atom assuming that the number of Quanta in it is infinite is a reasonable approximation in limit equations!

Gay Swearing

2008-02-14T11:24:00.003+02:00

"You guys are such assholes.... And not the good kind!!"

(Gay) Xandir / Drawn Together