Well, after a short (in comparison to geological time) abscence, I am back "blogging" about whatever happens to pass my fancy. I will start with today's question "How can you create more joy around you".

  Creating joy is impossible; joy, being an electrophysiological response to circumstances conducive to survival, is primarily energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so joy cannot be literally "created". However, joy can be found everywhere you look. Life, for example, can be a source of joy through happy events or coincidences; sometimes, life is simply a joy because one is still living. Many sights and experiences in the Outdoors (notice capitalization) can be joy-inspiring. Events that have personal meaning, like a wedding (or in some cases a funeral), can inspire joy. Gifts with a personal meaning, something as seemingly insignificant as a piece of string, can invoke a feeling of joy in the receiver. Accomplishments can inspire joy in the people who undertook them.

    Joy, as an emotion and not an electrophysiological response, can be increased through the sharing of the emotive event/coincidence/life/experience/thing with others. The joy one has regarding the situation is magnified and redirected back at oneself when shared with appreciative others. Bringing joy to others, as it's called, is another thing entirely and yet related. The joy you bring to others (provided you expect no return from the giving of the joy-making event/coincidence/life/experience/thing) is given back when one sees how much joy they have received. It's something to do with mirror neurons, as the scientists say; joy on someone else's face causes the emotion joy to be engaged in your brain. 
  
    Creating more joy is not feasible, but sharing what joy you have with loved ones and strangers alike can increase the effect of joy, spreading the joy until the effect is roughly congruent to the act of creating more joy. 

   That's it for the question of the day; now I'll spout about my own things. First off, thanks to Siona for reminding me that I have a blog here (I'll put it on my calendar). Secondly, I'm hoping I won't talk about the Pres. election except for this small phrase here: Thank you, God, it's finally over! NO MORE CAMPAIGN ADS AND ASSOCIATED EXCREMENT! That felt good. Damn, more coming.

  If any of the candidates were trustworthy, they wouldn't be running, to paraphrase an old saying. I had misgivings about both the candidates, and I will withold judgment on Pres-Elect Obama's policies until he actually starts doing things. Still, on balance, it's good for the country that an African-American is in the office; I just wish it wasn't Obama. Doesn't seem strong enough, so far anyway, to scare the bo-lol and bananach out of the rest of the World (Colin Powell, maybe). The Russians are already starting to move new nukes in and rattle sabers because they smell weakness. I hope this new President shows his stuff soon, otherwise we're not in for a good term. And I really hope he doesn't start messing about with Raul and Fidel; no good can come of an aliance with them. My Opinions, my blog; if you disagree or agree, I respect you because you're thinking about it.

   Anyhoo, I'm doing fine and I wish everyone reading well in the winter season, the coming year, the year after that, and so on ad nauseaum, ad infiniteum. I will write more, it just might be in spurts. Forgive my bluntness in this entry, but there's a reason; I felt like it and I'm a sentient being.

  Today's rather personal question is "Do you know your purpose in life?", a question which has a different answer for every person at every different moment in their life. For children, the answer can range from "I don't know" to "NO!" to "To eat candy!". Adults have the harder pondering to do, which is why there have been so many religious wars throughout history. The Crusaders believed their purpose in life was to kill the Heathen Moor (note the capitalization) and 'safeguard' Jerusalem, which didn't turn out so well; they didn't have the full information, so they were easily led astray (putting aside the fact that most of them were drop-of-the-hat homicidal maniacs). That question, like so many 'simple' questions, is one of the most divisive of our world.

  My personal answer to that question, biased and unique as it is, is that I do know my purpose in life right now. When I have children or some other life-altering occurence happens to me, my answer may (though it is extremely unlikely) change. What that answer is, I'm not sure I should say. Everyone, including me, is biased for or against at least one thing; generally one of those biases is the "good or evil" bias. Personally, I'm one of the good guys. I know it's not a common thing nowadays to consider oneself as "good" or "bad", but I've always been old-fashioned. If I see a rapist, he's evil. If I see a woman saving a child not her own from being run over, I see a good woman. If I see a group of men beating the shit out of a rapist who tried to rape the woman who saved the child, I'd like to think I'd join in, or at the very least applaud. People get too caught up in "grey areas". A grey area is only an area which no one is motivated enough to consider fully and at length. I think I'm repeating myself a little here, so I'll just call it a night. Real windbag answer, this one; I've got to stop "blogging" when I'm tired.

Busy days, restless nights; both make for little ease, much less blogging.

   Today's Question was "How do you keep yourself busy"; good question for today. Personally, I'm all for running and swimming and jumping jacks but not where I live; too many insects, too much heat, not enough grass on the lawn. For those of us who live in inhospitable areas, I recommend kung fu when you're not working or studying. I'm aware that a lot of people don't understand the connection between form and fighting and peace but you can express it two ways, stupid and correct. The stupid-albeit-funny way is "you study the form, so you can punch your neighbor, then you have peace". Chuckle, chuckle, sigh (enough sarcasm?). The correct-but-unfunny way to express that paradoxical relationship is that by learning to fight others, you learn not to have to fight them. For example, if you and a neighbor (geez, I must have a thing against neighbor, huh?) were to get into a fight and you killed him, not only would he be dead, but other bad things like jail would follow. However, by learning kung fu, you can either avoid the conflict altogether through self-control and patience, or beat his ass and avoid killing him through proper application of technique.

  Kung fu isn't for everyone; just anyone willing to put something into it. Seniors in kung fu up in the 80-year-old range can still spit-polish the bella wood floor with some hulking 20-year-old. Why? Because technique is all. Any teacher that insists you have to have strength to defeat an opponent is not well-versed in the martial world. Not that some techniques don't require a great deal of strengh; merely that defeating an opponent dosen't require strength, depending on if you know enough technique (see 80-year-old vs. 20-year-old). Conditioning is also partially optional in that you don't have to do as much as you think in order to defeat someone, though conditioning can help you disable or diffuse a situation a lot more quickly.

  Now presumably some kid or adult with no knowledge of kung fu is going to be looking at this and then researching all those "weird" claims of mystical powers through Chi. Listen closely, newbie, and you'll get a secret not often told you by someone who knows even a little: nobody has a clue what the limits of Chi kung are. A master in 1924 had a Model T roll over his abdomen and then roll and stop with one tire on said abdomen. The car was removed and he went home for tea, comprehend? Nobody in the martial world really knows if you can't fly or various weird shit like that, because nobody nowadays has the time or money to devote to the training, besides the fact that most of the Shaolin temple records were burned and the monks killed and eventually replaced with the bald-headed Teletubbies the Temple has today. (Yes, they practice WUSHU not KUNG-FU: truly huge difference, seriously. Look it up several times.) Chi Kung, or QIgong for the new Pinyin police, is also incredible helpful just as aerobic exercise and conditioning, besides helping with various health problems.

  Maybe I went a bit too tangential today, but I guess I'm in a kung-fu-esque mood. I'll see if I can't post more regularly, but fate is weird; it practices kung fu, you know.

   As no one has posted any new comments on my last entry, I'll consider that matter tabled. Hello, again to anyone reading; I've returned to the emotional enrichment that is blathering on about subjects that one has little pertinent knowledge regarding.

   The question of the day (courtesy Siona's suggestion) is "What inspires you most about the World?". If the question refers to our little planet Earth, then my instinctual response is: that the world is still here. When you actually ponder on it a little, it makes almost no sense why our world out of the billions in the galaxy would still be in relatively mint condition. The moon, our closest neighbor, looks like it went ten rounds with the combined (to venture slightly into the vernacular) "whupass" force of Tony Jaa, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, and Yuen Biao. If by chance you don't know who some of these people are, I highly recommend investigating them and their careers; very skilled, are they. In contrast, our world is protected by a comparatively thick atmosphere which deflects the aforementioned force considerably. However, planets (including ours) are constantly bombarded with various forms of radiation caused by solar flares, solar winds, and black holes; more properly quantum singularities if I remember correctly, a term which also includes wormholes under its aegis. The highly improbable combination of factors that go into our continual wellbeing scream for unisentient arrangement. After all, even Darwin couldn't believe that the eye evolved; no group of intermediaries exist between eyelessness and the visually blessed. Even if one completely ignores the probability of a higher power, the sheer tonnage of things that constantly work to kill us every day and yet haven't is extraordinary. Under Yellowstone Park, a supervolcano exists that, if it explodes, will possibly plunge the entire world back into an Ice Age; an asteroid currently heading toward earth somewhere around three miles wide is being deflected by NASA through the use of rocket-propelled thrusters; global warming, no matter what the 'definitve' cause is, has caused an increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other environmentally unfriendly weather phenomenon. Every day we exist is completely and utterly on borrowed time, no matter if an Ice Age comes or one of us gets hit by a bus, but the fact that our world is still around and that we are still around is truly astonishing. It's a life-affirming fact, our continued existence, at least to my way of thinking. If we are meant to be, we will be; if not, we won't be around very long to argue the philosophical connotation of that phrase. Either way, always interesting times on our planet.

  Another "Thank You" to Siona, who is welcomingly supportive with her comments. As to her suggestion for the Q&R, I am somewhat intrigued with the concept of a 'daily question', and will definitely take the possiblity under advisement.

  Today, however, I already have my topic; the dreaded subject, politics. I am sidestepping my loathing of the topic to comment on last night's debate between Senator Biden and Governor Palin. First off, I'm not voting for anyone; see previous entries. Regardless, I have to tip my hat to the ingeniously manipulative Palin, who cornered Biden no less than 14 times on his own issues. She chose her battlefield very carefully, often redirecting his own speeches against him. Every time Sen. Biden spoke mentioning energy, she began to point out the faults of his ticket on that subject. As he defended it by showing the same actions were taken by her candidate, she shrugged it off and renewed the battle in another direction. Sen. Biden managed to defeat her point-throwing completely on two occasions, and partially on a third but lost the overall debate for reasons I will elaborate on.

  Just before the very beginning of the debate, Gov. Palin asked Sen. Biden "Do you mind if I call you Joe?". Not seemingly important, but it subconsciously puts her immediately on the "Everyman's side", cultivating the working-class opinion. During the debate, she called Sen. Biden "Joe" on, at maximum, two occasions by my estimation, and both uses were very quick. She gained the Jewish vote by her millitant and incredibly supportive stance of Israel, and completely carried away the Cuban vote by denouncing the Castro brothers in the same sentence as Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il. The most important part of her stance in the debate was not audible, but visable; Gov. Palin maintained eye contact with the camera even when talking to Sen. Biden for almost the entire debate. The only time when Gov. Palin lost that eye contact was when she began to be efficaciously rebuffed by Sen. Biden. Sen. Biden during the debate continued to talk to the Moderator, whereas Gov. Palin talked to the camera, to "the People" essentially. During the last half-hour of the debate, Sen. Biden was very flushed and on various occasions his mouth contorted in a manner suggesting frustration, impatience, and anger; this probable emotional reaction might also have hurt his concentration, causing him to leave wider targets open toward the end of the debate. Many similarities can be drawn from the Nixon/Kennedy debate (also known in some circles as the "five o'clock shadow debate").

  From a limited male perspective, another subconscious basic reason begs investigation. Sen. Biden is a man, Gov. Palin a woman; from much experience, and cultural predisposition, women are seen as always winning arguments (which is close to what a debate is). It is an obvious parallel to draw, and the conclusion that "because he's a man, he can't win the debate" can be seen as a possible motivator for voters.

  I'm commenting on this debate because, essentially, it was the most entertaining political event I've seen in a long time. Let's face it frankly, life's boring and that much laughter-generating buffoonery is hard to come by.

  As is obviously noticeable, I haven't "blogged" for several days; this is mainly due to a lack of inspiration coupled with far too little 'me' time over the course of the past few months. My choice to resume my profound blatherings is arbitrary and subjective, being that I find it enjoyable to a certain extent and it allows an outlet for my creative talents (which are limited).

  The topic today is the most divisive on the planet, causing more deaths and suffering than every dictator, serial murderer, and generalized sociopath combined; simply put, child-rearing. Many people today are of the opinion that however they were raised is 'good enough' for their child, and they make no attempt to study the subject. To this, I say alas, alack, and for shame; without proper forethough, the successful upbringing of a child in any cultural/social/emotional setting becomes little more that random chance. Children are sponges; how you act, not what you tell them, almost invariably becomes the basis of their life. Even in child-rearing, one cannot be absolute in one's thinking. Assumption of any kind while mentoring one's child can cause irrepairable damage to that child's psyche. Without going into specifc politics, economic concerns, and religious beliefs, one can still safely say that picking up a few books on child psychology and reading them with retention would be well worth it if even the slightest chance of saving your child from the smallest harm could result from it.

  Parents, authoritative to permissive to authoritarian; all of them have an equal chance of screwing up if they do not focus on their child's overall well-being. If more parents took a little more time caring for their child emotionally, our world would be a place filled with far less suffering. After all, all those dictators and serial murderers and generalized psychopaths came from somewhere, didn't they? Parents are responsible for their childrens' mental health; adult people must inevitably bear the responsibility for their actions.

   Now that I've expressed myself publicly on political views, I might as well start on philosophy. It seems that scholars nowadays are thought of as quiet, marginal people who scutter about when light switches are thrown and are only useful when "bad shit happens". Previously they were acknowledged as intelligent, if pompous, windbags who could provide differing opinions on a subject in order to shed light upon its object. Clearly, I fall into the latter categorization.

  My views on philosophy are quite heavily Judeo-Christian with a good dose of Aristotlean questioning, "Diderotian" hope & order, and a healthy sprinkling of Confucianism and basic non-religious Taoism. I believe relatively firmly in the duality of nature, the necessity of respect for Elders, the wonders of observational learning, and strict lines between good and evil. Just for notes, however, I also believe especially in the parts of the Bible about "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord", "judge not lest ye be judged", "blessed are the Merciful", and "let he who has ears hear". My views are my own, and thus are affected by my temporal/spacial position relative to the rest of the universe; in essence, take what you want from this or not, it's no concern of mine.

 Right and wrong, people seem to believe nowadays, are incorrect ways of thinking; only "shades of grey" exist. I couldn't disagree more. The situation is the reverse, as if you take long enough to think completely around and about an action or situation, it is always clearly obvious what the right thing is. Sometimes people think there isn't enough time, which may be. Most times, I believe, people are just too lazy to actually use their brains and work it out. Needless to say, I have strong beliefs on just about everything. Regardless of my beliefs, I keep an open mind (Judeo-Christian/Aristotle/Diderot/Taoism) and view all things in as an objective manner as it is possible for me to do. Simply put, I take as much time as possible to consider my actions, and I only make actions that I think I can live with. Errors in an imperfect world with imperfect beings abound (I screw up on occasion, in other words).

  Humility is a grand thing, but something I haven't yet grasped fully. I once had the ability, but circumstances bred it out of me. Man, as all animals, is shaped by his environment and is, like the river, never the same from second to second. I understand that at least, but I attempt to vainly maintain some continuity in my actions if not my being. Just like everybody else on this shining rock and elsewhere in the universe, I'm doing my best day to day, one step at a time.

 Remind me never to "blog" when I'm tired; I spelled statistics "statistic's". Still, all in all this experience has been very illuminating. All that malarkey about expressing yourself being emotionally relieving seems to have some basis in fact.

  I'm still incredible new to this venue, but I've heard that one is supposed to talk about events or their life or such like when "blogging". I dislike politics, in that it divdes people along arbitrary lines. I'm unlucky, therefore, in that any grouping of people no matter the size involves politics. If politic as a method of interaction is indeed necessary, it can be agreed that those who want power seldom are capable leaders and those who don't want power seldom know how to wield it. In all things, a balance must be maintained. Choosing from several evils is illogical, as the choice is only to how many people will suffer, not whether people will suffer. Voting in a semi-representative government is illogical, as only the electoral college can make the final decision; all popular votes are advisatory, not binding. Fully representative government (like that of ancient Athens but without the discrimination) is logical only if everyone's vote can actually be counted and if everyone actually votes. 
 
  Democracy, a vaunted and beautiful ideal, can only work if the majority of the population is educated or at the least intelligent enough to comprehendwhat they are being asked. Anarchy is perhaps easier, but it is feared by all for its potential to unleash the full weight of criminality on the world. Monarchy is too easily abused, as is Plato's idea of a council of wise men. Wise or beneficient,  incorruptible does not necessarily follow. Theocracy has, time and again, shown that people in a group are too vulnerable to the tendency to blindly follow the first supposed saint or priest who whips up any amount of fanatical fervor.

  In essence, no system on this planet for dealing with humanity on a person-by-person basis has yet been conceived that does not have significant flaws. And hopefully, I will not be speaking on the subject of politics again.

A thousand years
Waiting for Sanctuary
While the crow flies

   Well, I guess statistic's aren't all they are cracked up to be. Significantly more than zero people read my first entry, which feels oddly unnerving, but they seemed not to be overly perturbed by it. I thank Siona for her comment, and I appreciate the welcome.

  I might have guessed, If I weren't so busy trying to ignore said guess, that new members with new blogs would naturally attract attention; either from the bored or the community-minded, attention must inevitably flow. Nice to know other people agree with my self-assessment (ie. sarcastic yet "depthy"). Maybe my mind just lacks the ability to turn itself off to such an extent that my opinions no longer retain weight. Not necessarily a good thing, especially in the venue of light conversation. Just as well for me, though; I always hated the notion of supposed 'light' conversation. Even saying "How's the weather, Bob?", can carry such a great deal of contextual meaning, based on the interplay of body language and tonal quality alone. There could be a hidden meaning, shared only between those in the conversation; some funny or gaunt incident which carried significance for both parties in relation to the weather. Language is a subtle and weird concept, far beyond it's original use as a means of transfering knowledge in order to survive the elements of nature.

   The previous paragraph is a perfect example of my inability to ' shut off ', perhaps too good of an example. Like most imperfections of personality, however, it serves its purposes.