Excuse the interruption.

My absence over the last few months is an inexcusable failure to apply myself, and for that I apologize.  However you might sentence the crime less harshly if I were to say that during these months I have moved out of my parents' house and that I am now living (and fending for) myself.  No? Ok.

Many people ask me the same question; occasionally finding the creativity to try a different sentence structure from the interviewer prior yet never wandering from the same gist.  And that gist is as follows: "Why did you move out?"

My reply- equally lacking in sentence structure variety - marches along the same lines as the following paragaph.

At some point in life one needs to learn how to fend for oneself, not only in the sense of physical needs such as how to cook and clean etc. but also how to organize one's time and energy in such a way as to live as efficiently as possible.  Furthermore, how can one feel any measure of self-worth when all the basic needs such as cleaning and eating and washing clothes and so on are handled by another person?  Being nurtured past the point when one can take care of oneself is an act of egotism and is certainly detrimental to the development of one's character.  Some people might press on and say that I could fend for myself whilst still living with my parents, but that would just complicate matters as the family has only one cooker, fridge, washing machine and so forth - plus (speaking from experience) it's not the same experience at all.

That's the answer when I'm feeling up to it.  Sometimes I just shrug.

I will try to be consistent in my blogging pattern from now on, I promise.

He said, she said, we said, they said....

Previously, I mentioned that I would discuss the nature of argument and debate after the Maltese divorce referendum had passed - and as it has, so I shall.

What is the point of a debate?  Well, indubitably if a debate is handled correctly and both sides are capable of recognizing their own defeat then a debate would progress much like a mathematical proof, with one side's progression from an agreed point challenged by the other and possibly adjusted, until the progression is found to be valid by both parties and so the discussion moves unto the next point. This is repeated again and again from point to point until a conclusion is settled upon by both sides.

But of course, that is not what actually happens in reality, and the way Malta handled the divorce referendum is a sterling example of this.  Nowadays a vast majority of debates make no effort to reach a true conclusion.  Rather they try to make their side look better than the other.  And that's it.  There's no search for truth, there's no vigorous thought.  There's a complete lack of interest in actually getting things right.  The world is perfectly satisfied in choosing the conclusion which looks best, rather than the conclusion which is founded in solid and justifiable arguments.

For example, in Malta the religious side of the debate spent many a good euro in associating the pro-divorce side with unpopular and/or very scary (and in some cases, non-existent) things.  These 'things' include hell, abortion, adultery, social disruption and Satan; I will leave it to the reader to decide which of these fall under the 'very scary' 'unpopular' and 'imaginary' categories.

It's also good to note how all religions also play part in the charade of appearances, rather than the study of reality.  When was the last time a Catholic preacher showed a congregation how Hinduism is logically invalid by reversing the argument into nonsensical statements (reducto ad absurdum) ? Never happened - for the simple fact that the same method can be applied to any religion, including Catholicism as in the example, and hence disprove the preacher's own beliefs.  Hence religions revert to showing how their side is better than the opposition's by having a scarier hell, a better heaven, more (unproven) miracles etc. etc.  Alas, I digress, as my habit of lifting the veil on religious garbage has taken the best of me.  Back to the point.

Even in casual environments like bars and domestic settings, the same frame of mind of "who looks best" was overwhelming.  People spoke about how silly a representative of a side spoke, or of a representative's past or present personal life or this sort of irrelevant dribble. It was very rare that people actually spoke of what the representatives said, and even when they did, the representatives mostly spoke appearance-related sentences with no solid argumentative value.  So as you can imagine, walking into a bar and hearing an intelligent point being made about divorce was the equivalent of walking into a church and finding an intelli-  oops, almost slipped again.

I will refrain from giving my opinion on divorce here because I am exhausted and it isn't the point of this writing.  I will say however, that I was pro-divorce from the beginning and am happily surprised by the referendum's outcome.

Now I must go to bed, for my keyboard will surely make a poor pillow.

Oh gracious reader...

My first priority in this humble text is to snatch and hold hostage the attention of you, my dearest reader.  I shall do so by reminding you, my precious reader, that every word you read is a sure sign that present within your skull is a highly complex and truly fascinating neurological storm marking you as a wonder of the natural world.  Hence, my most noble reader, read on and know that with every word you read you honour your place within the infinite manifold of the cosmos as a miracle of consciousness.  Don't you feel special now?

My second priority is to choose between the two topics which battle for prevalence within my own neurological storm.  The topic I will set aside for a later date will be the nature of argument and debate which I will leave for a time when the example I wish to make use of - the Maltese Divorce Crisis* of 2011 - is well behind us and hence we will be capable of 20/20 hindsight.

Hence the topic which I will be dragging on ab-- I mean, discussing, today is culture.  Not culture as in artworks and paintings and the sort, but culture as in the mentality of a society.

Recently I have thought quite a bit about the mentality of a people, and try as I might, I can't quite seem to find anything positive to say about it.  A society's culture prioritizes certain objects or ideals and then forces this prioritization unto all the members of a society, whether they like it or not.

This pre-programmed prioritization is astoundingly detrimental to the development of all individuals.  A tremendous part of life is finding out who you are.  Once you've done that you'll have a much, much clearer idea of what you want to do in life and where you want to go.  By pre-prioritizing all a person's thoughts, culture clouds one's mind from what s/he her/himself would have chosen given the chance.  A vast majority of people end up chasing what culture has idolized and never finding out what kind of person they themselves are.  They follow careers which are not suited for them, simply because they showed an aptitude in a particular school subject,  or because their family is full of a certain profession.

It's no wonder so many people log onto the internet everyday to complain how bored they are.  Of course they're bored, they're doing something unsuited for their personalities.  They spend their days wasting their time whilst opportunity after opportunity for happiness is washed away.

Culture places certain aspects of life in a box which it places on a pedestal, and sub-cultures follow suit - different aspects, but its the same old box and pedestal.

As time goes by I, personally, grow increasingly dissatisfied with culture.  It keeps on telling me to be who I'm not.  For a long time I've wanted to travel to a different country to get away, but I know it would be to no avail.  Another country will just have a different box and pedestal, and I will find myself in my position of dissatisfaction once again.  My best bet is to learn how to live peacefully alongside this social phenomenon without allowing it to suffocate my personality.  This is, I believe, true for anyone who finds him/herself desiring to develop a unique personality which is not suppressed by a society's culture.

(I plead, my cherished reader, that you do not see my comments about myself in the above paragraph as an act of egotism or self-righteousness.  I only use myself as an example because I am, or obvious reasons, the example with which I am most acquainted.)

You may have your attention back now.

*After writing this, the Divorce Movement won the referendum after all, thus partially restoring my faith in Malta.

Asymmetry of Truth.

I express - as I wish,
my thoughts on that
and that
and that
and this.

Now you ask "Why?"
As you scan with inquisitive eye.
And I begin the elaboration
Of my thoughts' own formulation.

Deeper and deeper we run the maze,
As I throw reason to questions' gaze.
Oh what a wasted melody
Of nature's structured symphony.

Neither stop as we waste
the splendid beauty of this place.
Neither of us care to see
the perfection of verifiability.

Every truth which we may think
rests upon a deeper link
But why don't we ever say.
"This is why the universe works this way" ?

To paraphrase the above; when we question one another and the responder begins taking steps "backwards" to elaborate what s/he means to say, we never stop to appreciate how true statements play off one another and allow some deductions to be true while others are false.

This elegant structure in nature allows for everything else to occur.  If the laws of nature weren't true they wouldn't influence existence, and all the structures of nature - from stars to trees to animals to blackholes, would never be.

This structure would never be if true and false weren't asymmetrical opposites.  By this I mean that the characteristics of a true statement are not the same as the characteristics of a false statement.

First of all, for any distinct piece of data there can only be one truth.  However, there may be an infinite amount falsehoods.  For example; the "true" statement for the weight of a given animal is, say, 50kg.  All other statements for the weight of this fictional animal are false...and there are far more false statements than there are true statements.

If we take the above and apply it to the famous paradox, "This statement is false," we can deduce that no piece of data can carry its own verification.  "This statement is false,"  cannot be said to be either true or false for it would be a contradiction.  However, we only assume that this statement is valid because "This statement is true," is not a contradiction.  As said before, true and false are not symmetrical, and so we cannot assume that "This statement is false," is a valid statement just because "This statement is true," is valid.  Hence, we can see how "This statement is false," is not a valid statement due to the contradiction it implies and so cannot be put forward.  To extend the argument further, no piece of data can claim itself to be false, due to the same argument given above.  Also, a piece of data claiming itself to be true is no better than a piece of data which makes no claim on its own truth-value, for obvious reasons.  Therefore we can go ahead and say no piece of data can carry its own verification and can only be proven true by other pieces of data.

Finally, from the above it can be seen how there can be no stand-alone piece of data as it must be verified by other pieces of data, which in turn must be verified by other pieces of data etc. etc.  Therefore the asymmetry of truth causes an endless stream of data, each one playing off the verification of the other - and this stream of data in turn shapes the laws of nature and allows them to form the universe.

If this asymmetry had to be shifted - say two truths to an infinitude of falsitudes - reality would be very different...perhaps an idea for computer science?

The focus of all this focusing.

On several occasions I have been asked something along the lines of, "What is the point of philosophy?  Isn't it all completely impractical.?"  My traditional answer to these sort of questions was to bring forth examples as to when philosophy was practical- and I would usually do it field by field (normally ethics followed by theology and epistemology- but I digress).  Unfortunately my responses were always long and not to elegant as they lacked straight-forward-ness.

However, I think I have come up with a much more eloquent and satisfying answer approximately forty-five minutes ago, between my thoughts of food and my speculations about how much wood a wood chuck would chuck if only a wood chuck would.

My new answer is as follows;  The whole point of philosophy is to strengthen or weaken arguments in favour of or against facts using as little empirical evidence as possible, and when possible prove or disprove these facts entirely.

Why?  Well as philosophy proves or strengthen the proofs in its diverse fields, the world as a whole begins to move closer and closer to a common body of knowledge/beliefs.  Even those who do not have a keen interest in philosophy are exposed at some time or another to one of its arguments (most people have heard of the problem of evil or the problem of omnipotence, even if though a vast majority don't know what their technical names are).  And as the world moves towards this body of knowledge society as a whole may begin to adopt more beneficial dynamics which in itself is a good thing, but may also lead to economical developments, which are another good thing and in turn may lead to yet another good thing- scientific advances.  (Not too mention, of course, that philosophical advances might also contribute directly to scientific advances, particularly in the field of epistemology.)

This is not quite as far-fetched as one may seem to think - remember the wars fought over differences in beliefs, the oppression of scientific development in Medieval times and so on and so forth, and one will instantly see how a lack of unified beliefs led to extreme cases of horrible social dynamics.  Another example can be seen in the Cold War, where two ideologies clashed and almost plunged the world into what could have been another World War.

These are all extreme cases, but they are situations which echo other lesser situations within society itself (like the foundation of law, which may lead to a high rate of criminality if they are not foundations which mirror the beliefs of the people).

Obviously, subjectivity is a prime enemy of all philosophy.  If we were all to accept subjectivity, we should all go ahead and toss out all literature which has anything to do with thought as it is completely futile to anyone save its author.  The only use it could be of for other people is mere entertainment- reducing its value from a work of rigorous thought to a children's fairytale.

Well, that there is my answer.

Much room for improvement.

I confess here as I would confess anywhere else should the need to do so ever arise that I have on several occasions over-valued myself. I have, to my great disdain, too much ego.

Furthermore, there have been (on much, much rarer occasions) times when I undervalued myself also. Although it is not as annoying as having too much ego, having too little is just as detrimental.

An unbalanced evaluation of self-worth can cause several conspicuous hardships;

Having one's self-worth over-estimated may result in;

• Looking like an idiot.

• Making up excuses for shortcomings (i.e. blinding oneself from one's own defects).

• Overvaluing one's own achievements, hence diminishing the drive for improvement.

• Being annoying and obnoxious.

• Disdain towards others when they excel in areas you don't.

On the other hand, having one's self-worth under-estimated may result in;

• Feeling like an idiot.

• Making up shortcomings (i.e. becoming convinced of non-existent defects).

• Being convinced that all exploits are to no avail, hence diminishing the drive for improvement.

• Being discouraging and unambitious.

• Disdain towards yourself when failure occurs.

Needless to say, an adequate level of self-esteem must be maintained. Neither too high nor too low, though in reality one may never achieve the ideal level of self-esteem seeing as our own opinions and perceptions are hardly ever 100% accurate.

Regardless, should one value oneself accordingly, one allows much room for improvement, as the realisation of shortcomings is the first step towards fixing them. Though one must not become overwhelmed by these defects to the point that all hope for improvement is abandoned.

And what of those who wish to better regulate their self-esteem but write it off as it being "just part of who they are"? If such a view were true - that we are incapable of adjusting our own personalities- then the entire practice and study of psychology would have long come tumbling down. All evidence in all psychological journals point to the mind being fully capable of self-adjustment.

And even if it were not so, one can view any character trait as a psychological pull which manifests itself in our actions. If you are incapable of altering this pull, why not develop another pull which counters it, in such a way as to regulate it? This pull has a name- it is called self-discipline, and it is critical to maintaining a proper level of self-esteem. I would say that the first step to altering one's self-esteem is probably to develop a very strong control of oneself- that is to say to become properly self-disciplined. This self-discipline serves as an irreplaceable tool for both altering one's perception of one's self and regulating the effects of over- or under- valuing oneself.

An invaluable piece of advice is to always remember who you are, something I believe I mentioned a few months back in a post entitled "Oops". Remembering who you are means being fully conscious of your personality, both the good and the bad.

"Remember who you are"- a phrase I admit I ripped off of Korn's new album (which is, may I take this opportunity to add, brilliant beyond belief) - is quite possibly the most important piece of advice I might ever give to anyone, including myself.

Neither do I know, nor shall I pretend to know - but I shall speculate.

These past two weeks the topic of faith has been flung at me from all directions and often from the most unexpected places. Due to this, my thoughts about faith have been buzzing diligently within my skull and hence I shall emancipate them here.

One of the most horrible and yet most fortunate traits of being human is not knowing a very vast majority of things. There exist several questions to which we simply do not have answers, and so we use faith (in many forms, including hypotheses and theories) to fill these unanswered voids.

Faith can be classified into three categories:

These is immediate faith- the faith which is the foundation of all religious institutions but is often also found in other areas. This kind of faith is very cut and dry. It is simply choosing a theory and accepting that theory to be true. Religion is the perfect example here - even though I hesitate to use it. Unfortunately however, it is too good an example to pass up. Religion is a very clear example of immediate faith for it provides the answers immediately and hence labels all other faiths as false. Note in particular how this kind of faith completely cripples all prospects of searching for answers.

Then there is primary mediate faith. This faith is quite specific. It accepts that there are things we don't know and further asserts that research and study will allow us to discover these things. It provides no substitute for what is not yet known. Note how this faith very powerfully encourages the search for knowledge.

Finally there is secondary mediate faith. This is better known as open-minded faith. Whilst accepting certain theories, this faith acknowledges that they are only theories and is open to replacing these theories with facts when these facts become known. It is a well-balanced mix of primary mediate and immediate faith. Whilst it does not encourage the search for knowledge as strongly as primary mediate faith does, it is very useful as it provides some dogma to apply in life until the facts become known.

In reality one may use a mix of two or all of the different kinds of faith, for example having an adamant religious core but being open to some of the religious dogma being changed over time.

On a personal note, my preferred faith is primary mediate, although I use secondary mediate too in some cases as I need it to get by.

Some people may claim to have no faith at all, although this is only true as they are using a different definition of faith. By virtue of the above three definitions the only plausible way of having no faith is by admitting there is knowledge we don't know and not knowing whether further research will provide answers or not. Although such a lack of faith means not only having no dogma to live by but also not searching for any knowledge, hence living life not only knowing no truth, but also with no hope of learning the truth. Ironically, faith is required for one to gain knowledge.

On a side-note I would also like to point that if any atheistic person is asked by a religious fanatic about a topic which (s)he feels (s)he knows the answers too whilst the non-believer does not, remember that they don't "know" either, they only believe and as such everyone on Earth is on the same level when it comes to these questions as no matter how strongly you believe something, believing is not knowing.