Some days are good days, other days are bad days. Either way, the "day" is used as a unit of measurement akin to other measurements of time such as seconds, months, and even light years. But what exactly consitutes a day? The "day" somehow became a frame of reference due to the simple act of a star in the sky rising from the East and setting in the West? From the twenty four hours it takes for the earth to spin upon its own axis? How is it that a day can be such a single unit, and disregard the hundreds of seconds that compose it--and should not each second be given its own right to exist in singularity? It is, yes it is, but is there ever a saying that goes "those were the seconds?" No. Alas, it is always, "Those were the days."
In life, we write chapters and conclude volumes without knowing when one will start and whether there will be another addition. How we classify these "days," too, enters into an oblivion of memory that is easily identified as a "phase" or "moment in time." For example, people experience emotional phases in life, such as the loss of a dear one, causing them great sorrow for an elongated period of time. Those were the days. Those were the days, when he mourned for the loss of his mother. And, in parallel, those were the days when he and his mother shared such fond times on holidays and family trips. Those were the days, and the days are so clumped together that each day is not paid respect to on a singular level. One day could have passed with an altercation with son and mother, but the days surrounding that one day enveloped much affection.
How can one day make all the difference? How is it that a dragonfly is born and its life can just span the next twenty four hours? Does it realize the passage of time, and does it know how long time really is? Does it matter? How incredible it is that we understand the lineage of time but it doesn't--is it not being cheated? A day can make all the difference for such an insect, but, too, can be life changing for others. A driver who suddenly looses control of his vehicle gets into an accident and changes many lives forever. He may lose his own life or take the life of another--of which both scenarios include the affected families. In love, movies such as Veer Zara or epic literatures such as Romeo & Juliet emphasize the value of one day. In just one day, it is possible that entire lives change based upon the unsteady assumption that both lovers equally care for another. How can it be that one day can change a life?
It can be... Lives were changed forever on a day that is very well-known throughout the world. On September 11th, 2001, the world changed forever. What a difference a day makes. That one morning, we all wake up to a new reality. A new world in which trust has gained yet another level of difficulty. In just a day, the theft of lives provoked the domino effect of the theft of trust, of belief in mankind.
Birth can occur in a day, and death can occur in a day...The fate of an innocent man pressed with guilty charges is determined in just a day. A day can be the date of marriage, a day can be the date of divorce. A day can be recorded in history as revolutionary and a day can be recorded in a diary as suicidal. A day is shared around the world but does not serve a universal purpose; for one man it is a holiday and for another is a mourning. Some see days, some don't. Days pass with time, days start time. Days can be counted, and days can be eternal.
Yes, in just a day. A day is all it takes. What is a day?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Subjectivity
The line is drawn. Who decided to? What was it for? Why was it drawn there?
The questionable nature of a line subjects itself to much invalidation. Perhaps if lines were universally straight, then credibility would follow in parallel. However, in reality, this is not the case. It is true that lines are drawn by convenience, by reasons known to some and not to others, by random people at random times, and...ultimately...by simple subjective measures.
For example, a deliberation constantly following examinations among both students and teachers is the method of grading. The questions range from whether there should be a curve to justify the difficulty of the exam relative to the students' overall performance or lack a curve because the test should serve as an adequate assessment of lessons learned; whether a formal answer key should be established to provide a concrete reference with solutions or lack an answer key so as to judge each student's individual answers and see whether he/she understood at least the overall points; whether the exam should test on impossible material and become a virtual symbol of life or if it should instead be manageable and actually "test" whether a student understood the material or not...Exactly where is the line drawn when it comes to how much should be completely subjected to the teacher? How is the bar set? Do you compare one student to the class or do you set high standards despite the class failing?
In matters of politics, when the aim of upholding the common public good for all peoples, how is the common good determined, and by whom, and who's standards? The example of Turkey as a secular state is a large paradox considering its majority (99%) population is Muslim, yet it disregards any laws pertaining to religion in order to advance as a modern state. The common public good, therefore, was pre-determined to equal "modernization." In the pursuit of this common public good, how much of the entire public was subjected to a single person's vision of the common good?
In language--limited as it is--the simple utterance of an apology by saying "sorry" can, too, be subjected to so many different interpretations, yet be applied to any situation. Is saying sorry about not taking out the trash the same as saying sorry for killing a child's mother during war? The next time you say sorry, please question yourself on, from a level of 1 through 10, how sorry you really are, with 10 being the extreme extent to your sincerity.
Language is, again, so limiting that even a simple phrase such as "I am" (the shortest possible sentence in the English language) can be translated using just as many, fewer, or more words in other languages. Some languages may not even directly translate "I am" and may, instead, say things along the lines of "I be" or "Exist do I."
Then there's speed limits. Of course, they were invented with a purpose--to save lives. But when it comes to getting a ticket, what's the difference between driving 1 mile over the speed limit and 1 mile under? On the sheet that describes reasons for destructive driving, one of the boxes that can be "checked" as a factor includes a section on weather and time: was it a clear day, a foggy day, was it during night when it was hard to see? There is so much subjectivity that no two circumstances of getting a ticket could be identical.
My favorite point on subjectivity is exception. Where, who, and what are the exceptions? In law, arguably a black-and-white field, a king is distinguished from a peasant. But how is the king defined? By a crown? And a peasant-by his bare feet? In matters of objectivity, a king should not escape the law just as a peasant; if he committed murder, he should be subjected to the same punishment. But why does he get special treatment? Why is power the most easily subjected tool in the world?
The way I see it, and as my philosophy has always been: If a fly cannot discriminate between you and I, between a king and his slave, then who is to say?
The questionable nature of a line subjects itself to much invalidation. Perhaps if lines were universally straight, then credibility would follow in parallel. However, in reality, this is not the case. It is true that lines are drawn by convenience, by reasons known to some and not to others, by random people at random times, and...ultimately...by simple subjective measures.
In matters of politics, when the aim of upholding the common public good for all peoples, how is the common good determined, and by whom, and who's standards? The example of Turkey as a secular state is a large paradox considering its majority (99%) population is Muslim, yet it disregards any laws pertaining to religion in order to advance as a modern state. The common public good, therefore, was pre-determined to equal "modernization." In the pursuit of this common public good, how much of the entire public was subjected to a single person's vision of the common good?
In language--limited as it is--the simple utterance of an apology by saying "sorry" can, too, be subjected to so many different interpretations, yet be applied to any situation. Is saying sorry about not taking out the trash the same as saying sorry for killing a child's mother during war? The next time you say sorry, please question yourself on, from a level of 1 through 10, how sorry you really are, with 10 being the extreme extent to your sincerity.
Language is, again, so limiting that even a simple phrase such as "I am" (the shortest possible sentence in the English language) can be translated using just as many, fewer, or more words in other languages. Some languages may not even directly translate "I am" and may, instead, say things along the lines of "I be" or "Exist do I."
My favorite point on subjectivity is exception. Where, who, and what are the exceptions? In law, arguably a black-and-white field, a king is distinguished from a peasant. But how is the king defined? By a crown? And a peasant-by his bare feet? In matters of objectivity, a king should not escape the law just as a peasant; if he committed murder, he should be subjected to the same punishment. But why does he get special treatment? Why is power the most easily subjected tool in the world?
The way I see it, and as my philosophy has always been: If a fly cannot discriminate between you and I, between a king and his slave, then who is to say?
"The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it."
- Francis Bacon
Friday, October 8, 2010
Reality
With a simple pair of lens, the entire world can seem entirely different. What could once be seen as a foggy mist above mountains can instead be seen as a crispy clear sky in a distant landscape. Holding the pair of lens in my hands, I can actively choose whether or not I want a blurry world or a focused world--but why should this be a dichotomy? Why cannot I see the world as I see it, or perhaps as I wish to see it? Am I supposed to be aware that I have lens to see clearly with? What if I don't-- shall I just roam the world, blindly, or rather, blurriedly?
These lens pave a path for us to elude somewhere else, but at the same time we are handicapped to walk along this pavement since we are completely disoriented on what is real and what is not. Constantly, it is a struggle to decipher truth among deception. But, is this not assuming that deception is the reality? That we must question all that is unreal in order to distinguish what truly is real? What is reality?
In a generation when technology and the media have bombarded the imagination with a plethora of unreal images, fantastical lands, and mythological creatures, it has become possible to merge the unreal with the real. It seems, however, that the fatal mistake being made is the life lived in an illusion of what is unreal. We assign value to unreal things, we analyze actions that have not been made, we conclude judgments on the what-ifs. We create alternate universes among our own. But who is to say that we do, in fact, live in a single universe? Perhaps we occupy two or three simultaneously. Ever heard of deja vu?
In addition to the lengths of greatness occupied by a universe, there is the internal universe, our own reality that suggests itself to be uniquely formed. It is a reality best understood exponentially. First, there is the reality of a fly on a wall. Once the fly occupies space, it is connecting to the universe of whatever space, or mass, it is surrounding. Therefore, its occupied space multiplies by itself. Imagine the fly, on a leaf. Then, adding another power, some rain drops fall onto the leaf. Now, it is the rain, on a leaf, near the fly. Third power. With each increment of increasing power, it can be observed that the fly has encountered a greater reality-space than that with which it originated. Therefore, it can be said, that the fly is in its own world. And when it interferes with other worlds, its world becomes larger and larger.
The same can be said of humans. We have our own realities, we are in our own worlds--both as a mass, and then as individuals. Beyond the disciplines of an individual, there are his mental worlds. With every new interaction, the mental realm of a person enters a new imagination of possibilities. New fantasies, new realities. All are formed. And, with each merging of realities, a set of reality absorptions occur, so that one person is no longer wholly himself, but rather, a collection of others' remains, others' realities. For example, if I lived in my own bubble and never knew who President Obama was, I would never be able to imagine the realities and fantasies of America. I would be limited to just my own world's perceptions.
We create cultures as if they were worlds. Aside from the obvious--travelling--as being the only act to induce the clashing of cultures, it can be noted that cultures can be born in any setting. Within a room, a culture is created between roommates. In a class, between classmates. In a prison, among inmates. In the wilderness, among nature. With each consequent environment is a culture, and with each culture demands a reality.
Our realities are numerous, and we form realities with our environment as well as with our people. We create a culture within friendships, yet a different culture with relationships, and yet another culture with formal interactions. We pass the boundaries of one world, of one culture to the next, with a simple handshake. Or with a simple change of clothes.
But how do we determine a shared culture, a shared world, a shared reality? A single reality. A universal truth, something that can be accepted regardless of who we have interacted with, what we have been exposed to, or where we have been? Indeed, globalization has risen out of these questions and has ultimately molded the world into a single thread, where the spool acts as an axis as the thread spins around with singular ideas, uniform environments, and universal cultures repetitively.
Our realities have become so interconnected. To pull a chunk out of mine and consider it a collective sample of the whole would be a fallacy. And to consider it as a single, original piece of my own reality would be impossible, since I have developed many interactions and have interfered with too many a reality. But there still remain realities to be discovered. My exponential connection with different environments needs to increase. And with this, I end with a quote from a wise man:
When you are on land, you turn and only see what is around you.
Climb on the mountain to seek the truth, for at the top, you see what is unseen.
These lens pave a path for us to elude somewhere else, but at the same time we are handicapped to walk along this pavement since we are completely disoriented on what is real and what is not. Constantly, it is a struggle to decipher truth among deception. But, is this not assuming that deception is the reality? That we must question all that is unreal in order to distinguish what truly is real? What is reality?
In a generation when technology and the media have bombarded the imagination with a plethora of unreal images, fantastical lands, and mythological creatures, it has become possible to merge the unreal with the real. It seems, however, that the fatal mistake being made is the life lived in an illusion of what is unreal. We assign value to unreal things, we analyze actions that have not been made, we conclude judgments on the what-ifs. We create alternate universes among our own. But who is to say that we do, in fact, live in a single universe? Perhaps we occupy two or three simultaneously. Ever heard of deja vu?
The same can be said of humans. We have our own realities, we are in our own worlds--both as a mass, and then as individuals. Beyond the disciplines of an individual, there are his mental worlds. With every new interaction, the mental realm of a person enters a new imagination of possibilities. New fantasies, new realities. All are formed. And, with each merging of realities, a set of reality absorptions occur, so that one person is no longer wholly himself, but rather, a collection of others' remains, others' realities. For example, if I lived in my own bubble and never knew who President Obama was, I would never be able to imagine the realities and fantasies of America. I would be limited to just my own world's perceptions.
We create cultures as if they were worlds. Aside from the obvious--travelling--as being the only act to induce the clashing of cultures, it can be noted that cultures can be born in any setting. Within a room, a culture is created between roommates. In a class, between classmates. In a prison, among inmates. In the wilderness, among nature. With each consequent environment is a culture, and with each culture demands a reality.
Our realities are numerous, and we form realities with our environment as well as with our people. We create a culture within friendships, yet a different culture with relationships, and yet another culture with formal interactions. We pass the boundaries of one world, of one culture to the next, with a simple handshake. Or with a simple change of clothes.
But how do we determine a shared culture, a shared world, a shared reality? A single reality. A universal truth, something that can be accepted regardless of who we have interacted with, what we have been exposed to, or where we have been? Indeed, globalization has risen out of these questions and has ultimately molded the world into a single thread, where the spool acts as an axis as the thread spins around with singular ideas, uniform environments, and universal cultures repetitively.
Our realities have become so interconnected. To pull a chunk out of mine and consider it a collective sample of the whole would be a fallacy. And to consider it as a single, original piece of my own reality would be impossible, since I have developed many interactions and have interfered with too many a reality. But there still remain realities to be discovered. My exponential connection with different environments needs to increase. And with this, I end with a quote from a wise man:When you are on land, you turn and only see what is around you.
Climb on the mountain to seek the truth, for at the top, you see what is unseen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)