How to be Kedar

I touched upon something very deep in my last post. I have a deep need to feel like I should exist.

Having observed that I do exist (cogito ergo sum), the first question arises, “Why do I exist?”

I have also said, I feel in several posts in the past, that what does happen should happen. This assumption is deterministic; it sidesteps free will. The state of mind that is consistent with this idea ultimately does not question why he exists. He merely accepts that he should exist, because he does exist. He has peace of mind.

the answer is not that there is no purpose, or that we create our own purpose (nihilism and existentialism). if we use the teleological argument, then a thing should fulfill its purpose. the idea of duty and reason are intimately related. so if it stands true that, ‘what does happen, should happen,’ then a thing is always fulfilling its purpose (it is always doing what it should, which is to fulfill its purpose). and what can be said of purpose? purpose is that the reason why something must happen is that it does happen. this seems like a frivolous tautology, but I do not mean it to be so. we believe that the reason why is separate or behind the thing. for instance, we say that the reason why a ball falls is gravity. what I am saying is that the reason why is equivalent to the thing. the reason why the ball falls to the ground is because it does. yes, gravity is a description of how the ball falls. but it is not the purpose, or the reason why, the ball falls. another formulation is saying that the reason why the ball falls due to gravity, assuming that it is the case, is that is what it does.

okay, let me get back to the point. I was getting a little side-tracked there. a lot of people feel anomie (pointlessness of existence); myself included. but if we conclude, as I have done, that the reason for existence is that existence ‘exists’ (a point which I believe we can unanimously conclude), then there is no loss of purpose at all. it is merely a redefinition; a confusing one at that, if you think about it for long enough.

but there are a lot of unanswered questions. these questions deal with free will (mostly). this is the question. what should I do? it is not satisfying to say that I should do anything and that is my purpose. that seems like a return to aimlessness, and the anomie that I am wanting to avoid.

due to these complications, an entirely new philosophy is fleshed out. it is a philosophy of ‘personhood’.

so we use the scientific method extensively to deduce hypothesis and induce phenomena, about the outside world.

wouldn’t it be possible to use the scientific method to discover yourself?

let me show you how this is possible. looking at myself from a third person perspective, I see the types of things that I do from day to day. while it’s hard to make out the details that I don’t pay attention to, the bigger picture is clear.

I spend an enormous amount of my time thinking and writing about philosophy. why? because I have had a silly dream, since I was an early teenager (or maybe even earlier than that), that I would someday write a book on philosophy.

and so, observing my own actions, I see that I put a great deal of effort into writing this philosophical book.

it is from this point that I can make hypothesis about why these actions are taken. these hypothesis are validated by observations inferred.

this experiment is, by scientific standards, well… not very scientific. first of all, there is no quantitative measure. we cannot use data analysis. second of all, the recording instrument (my mind) directly interferes with the medium of the experiment (again, my mind). so strictly speaking, I am not really using the scientific method. I am, however, inspired by certain aspects of the method – making hypothesis, testing hypothesis, observation, conclusion, etc.

anyway, so I have validated through my observation that I want to write a philosophy book. now I want to question the motives behind this – to dissect all the components that come together to push me in that direction.

many of them come to mind, also validated by other feelings and actions.

one of the obvious motives is to make money. although I know that books are often flops, and writers make a hard living, I still have the idea that I could somehow succeed with this book. maybe I could write it on the side while I’m doing another job (being a computer engineer). maybe I could hold seminars and conferences, give speeches, even get ad revenue from making a self-help blog.

what is the reason that I want to make money writing a book? the most obvious reason is that I don’t want to work for a living. I’d rather set up a system that makes money for me. another big reason is that I don’t want to have to worry about money. I see that my parents have money problems, and I don’t want to be like that. I’d like enough money to just be comfortable – to not ever be on the tight end. one last reason that I can come up with is that I want to be able to help myself and those that I love. medical bills cost a lot these days. I don’t to make my parents (or family) worry about their declining health, and about paying off those bills. I also don’t want them to be in money binds. I’d like to buy my mother a massage chair because she gets all those knots in her back. I’d buy my dad something too. I want them to be comfortable in their old age.

it’s not just about the money. I have this deep craving to be well-liked by other people. it is probably both conditioned by society (the pressure to keep up appearances and to not look like a dolt) and by my own childhood (being teased and an object for ridicule). so I feel like if I accomplish something, especially something as ambitious as this, people will like and admire me. more than being successful, I would like to be considered successful.

so at this point, being well-liked relates to a similar craving – to be influential and considered great. in other words, to make up a good name for myself. to have a legacy while I am alive, and to leave a legacy when I am dead. this is like an antithesis to one of my deep fears – that is to die without accomplishing something, or more importantly to die without being remembered. better to die being remembered for something good; no, something great.

I have gotten to the heart of one of my greatest goals – to feel like I matter; to feel like I belong; to feel like I am wanted; to feel like I am not alone; to feel like other people need me; to feel like other people are thankful for me; to feel like other people love me.

while I can go on and on with that tangent, I’ll get right to the obvious source. because I am so involved with philosophy, it says something about my character – not only am I a thinking person, but I am a person who directs his thoughts toward finding meaning and purpose. I often feel lost and confused, as though I have lost my path. when I think about philosophy, it makes me happy because I feel like I am coming closer to discovering my way; I am closer to discovering the best way to live life. so a great part of my love for philosophy is that I feel more comfortable having this sense of, as I said, meaning and purpose.

I feel like I would reach a stage, having developed my philosophy far enough, where I would be able to help many people, and that I would be able to live a proper life. at that point, I could share my philosophy with others and potentially help many people find their way. that gives me a sense of worth.

there are many other things that I could say, but this is sort of an example of how I’ve openly realized so much about myself only through observations of my character, of my thoughts and feelings.

I used an analogy yesterday, in an argument about the nature of God, that God is a black box.

think about this.

there’s a lot of the stuff in the world that I don’t know. I will admit that. can you admit that there is a lot of stuff in the world that you don’t know?

now let’s say that there is a mystery box, and we have to figure out what is inside. there is absolutely no way of opening the box, shaking the box, scanning the box with electromagnetic waves, taking the temperature of the box, smelling what’s inside the box, etc.

basically, you have no way of figuring out what’s inside this mystery box. that’s why it’s called a mystery box!

so you can talk about what you think is inside the box. one person thinks it’s a pair of underwear. another person thinks it’s a cat. another person thinks that it’s just an empty box. the funny thing is, a lot of people are really REALLY sure that they know what is or isn’t inside that box.

in computer science, this is called a ‘black box’.

God is a black box. how can you test whether or not there is a God?

a good answer – you can’t. but don’t despair. religion isn’t about proving. it is about giving and receiving hope and faith. it is about being kind and loving to other creatures. it is about enjoying the gift of life, and being grateful and forgiving. religion is about a lot of things – I can tell you what it isn’t about. religion isn’t about hurting other people. religion isn’t about taking other people’s money. religion isn’t about scaring people. religion isn’t about forcing a person to believe something.

if anyone can give me a solid proof that there is or isn’t a God, I can show how you are wrong. if you still want to try, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

now, you can have any kind of faith that you want. but you have to admit that there are things that you don’t know, and be comfortable with the idea that you might be wrong.

if you’re an atheist, maybe God does exist. If you’re religious, maybe God doesn’t exist.

Why am I here?

I don’t mean to sound depressed, because I’m not. I just wonder why I’m right here, right now. Look at me. Look at everything around. It’s like everything just randomly blipped into existence and time went on and here I am. what does it all mean? what is it all for?

I read that life was created because of negative entropy (negentropy for short). basically, the transition from the hot sun to the cold Earth creates the potential to work. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe wants to make thermal energy less available to work. So life exists to export high entropy (by working and thereby giving off heat) while maintaining a low internal entropy. Life then evolves into more creative ways to accomplish that goal.

But really. Think about that. Do I really exist because laws of biology and physics say that I should? Do I exist only to work and to give off heat? That sounds depressing.

What is my purpose? What am I supposed to be doing?

Okay. Let’s assume that life really is all about negentropy.
Here are some scientific conclusions I can make, based on physical and biological laws:

1. We should be more active. Active people exert more energy. Life is about being lively – energetic, vigorous, enthusiastic. Active people also enjoy greater benefits: for instance, sexual appeal. Active people are also happier, and tend to achieve more in life. Life is survival of the fittest – so stay fit.
2. Get outside. If negentropy is created from the transition of the hot sun to the cold Earth, being out in the sun is a prime source for negentropy. Plus, nature is very beautiful.
3. Get rid of sources that drain you. energy drainers slow down productivity, and make life less enjoyable. there are a lot of things and people that can drain you – try to stay away.
4. We should maintain ourselves. The better we keep our life organized, the better potential we have for future work. We need to do what we can to keep ourselves healthy, active, in a good financial situation, etc. Life in the proto languages means ‘continuance’ and ‘perseverence’. That’s exactly what we should be doing – persevering.
5. We should look after others, and get them active too. The more we look after other people, the more entropy that can be given off. So we should make a lot of friends and be really close with family, help them out when they are in trouble, and be kind and loving to all life in general (including pets). We should also get people involved in social activities.
6. We should have a job that helps people – a job that keeps us active – a job that we love. It’s not enough to have a job that just keeps us busy. It is a psychological fact that if you love your job, you’re more likely to find a sense of meaning and purpose, and to be more successful than other people. A job that you’re good at, a job that you’re passionate about – that is best.
7. We should support a government that helps people. That’s basically the function of a government. I probably don’t have to explain this.
8. We should support initiatives that help people. More science is a good thing. Better technology is a good thing. Higher standards of education is a good thing. The government, social organizations, interest groups, and people in general should support causes that help people.
9. We should improve, and help others improve. The better we improve and adapt, the more likely we are to survive and thrive. There are a lot of ways to improve – to keep healthy, to learn more knowledge and skills, to have a good amount of money, etc.
10. We need to use less resources, and maintain the environment. If we use up all of the raw resources, life won’t exist. The environment affects everyone, so we don’t want to mess it up.
11. We should fall in love. Love is a mutual relationship that keeps people alive, healthy, and happy. True love is more than a feeling of love – it is acts of love.
12. We should have children (if it’s possible to look after them properly) and take good care of them. Children are a new source of negentropy. It is natural and good to have children, but only if it’s possible to take care of them.
13. We should follow the Serenity Prayer.
    “God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.”
    If there is one thing we can learn from science, it is that everything happens for a reason. Some things we can and should change, others we can’t change. Whatever laws that the universe follows, whether we know it or not, it is much much bigger than any one of us. So instead of sitting around dwelling on the sad, we should get up and get glad.
14. We should get used to chaos and disorder. Physics and thermodynamics say that eventually everything will fall apart. There’s no way to stop that. In fact, as lifeforms, we are contributing to that process even when we aren’t consciously moving – for instance, the digestion of food. Naturally, we would fear disorder because it keeps us at a low entropy. However, sometimes things go wrong and we can’t do anything. rather than panic, it’s better to accept fate.

people are not comfortable about talking about people as deterministic. the idea of not having free will is unsettling – like Calvinist predestination.

but I believe that every action is the result of a causal matrix. animate matter is distinct from inanimate matter only in that it is undergoing a biochemical process with characteristics we call ‘life’.

so the end – the pure end as in the purpose of life – is deterministic. it is a finite state machine of behavioral dispositions. for a particular input, there is a new behavioral disposition output. the way this will change is also determined by the causal matrix.

it has been established by me philosophically that certain actions are means (instrumental) toward ends (inherent). but first-order ends are instrumental to second-order ends. and so on. but somewhere along this tree, there is the pure end or the pure ends.

pure ends are at the essence of existence. every single action is working toward that end, whether we know it or not. I do not believe that pure ends are easily knowable.

pure ends are also probably deterministic. perhaps, as the social Darwinists propose, the pure end is survival of the fittest.

there is no real moral imperative. there is no universal standard for right and wrong. right and wrong can only be comparators for means, and not for ends.

the only thing that you should be is yourself. but there are better and worse ways of being yourself. for instance, listening to your heart and intuition is a good way of being yourself. listening to what other people say what you should do (if you don’t agree with it) is a bad way of being yourself.

so life can be simplified into means and ends. We have certain ends or wants, and to satisfy them we have means. there are better and worse means. some ends are means to a deeper end – like actions toward completing a project. but pure ends cannot be judged as better or worse. pure ends are merely what they are.

the way to really read a person (or yourself) is to question what your immediate desires are. these are signs of what you want. but usually these desires are part of a deeper, more subtle desire. and so if you dig deep enough you’ll come to a point where all or most of your petty desires are extensions of a few central desires.

one of the deepest ends of all is happiness. the result of satisfying desires is a surge of pleasure from the reward system of the brain. so of course we do things in order to be happy and nothing else.

now there are means to being happy. to each his own – there is no universal formula for being happy that every person can follow. of course, there is the option of becoming a drug addict, but I’ll explain why that is not a good means in a bit.

it could be said that every single deed that we do, consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, is a means toward happiness. that is not to say that these means are guaranteed to succeed (as is often not the case; otherwise we could do absolutely anything and be happy). furthermore, I don’t mean happiness as an emotion but happiness merely as the achievement of an end (known or unknown). life can be reduced to, as I mentioned, the satisfaction of desires. these desires need not be merely for animal pleasures like food and sex. these desires can be about being engaged with the environment, or about discovering meaning and purpose. these desires are definitely not animal – they are uniquely human.

the end for one’s source of happiness is neither right nor wrong. it is merely what it is – it’s a biological/behavioral predisposition. however, as I said, some means are better than others. a sign that you are happy is that you feel happy. but feeling happy isn’t necessarily an accurate predictor for if you are actually happy. it doesn’t matter if happiness is knowable or quantifiable, what does matter is that you want to be happy if you are not happy.  that’s all there is to it.

liberty is both a means and an end. it is a means to achieving happiness, but it is an end in and of itself. I find liberty synonymous with ‘absence of restraint’, ‘ability’ and ‘opportunity’. by this definition, liberty is ’something that enables a person to satisfy a desire’. with liberty, you have a greater probability of being happy – this is why liberty is a means to happiness. but often freedom is itself a desire. that is why liberty is an end.

I said earlier that being addicting to a drug is not a proper end. this is because although it may bring happiness, it restricts liberty. fecund liberty breeds happiness. it is by this that any form of addiction is a lesser happiness.

liberty is useful to the extent that it has the capacity to produce happiness. for instance, the freedom to punch yourself does not yeild happiness because you don’t like punching yourself – this freedom is useless. it does become useful when it is able to produce happiness – for instance, if your child enjoys watching you punch yourself, and you enjoy seeing your child happy, the freedom to punch yourself becomes useful.

the ideal end for liberty is to be able to do what you want, but be disaffected by the consequences. Freedom is basically being detached – being independent and autonomous as far as possible. It involves discipline and self-mastery.

so if you are not affected by consequences, how can you ever be happy? well, you can enjoy your happiness, but when the happiness is gone you move on. you see, a person who is free is able to let go. many people have a fear of losing the things they care about. they are not free – fear is a common barrier to freedom. if you really care about something and you’re able to let go of it, then you are free. if you are in a tough situation and you are able to not let it get to you, then you are free. a person who is free lives by the ‘make lemons out of lemonade’ philosophy.

Okay, I’m going to change up my definition of truth a little bit. A lot of what I said before was just airbaggery. pssst – that’s my new euphemism for bullshit.

I’m going to talk about truth as relative truth, not as absolute truth.

I will say that truth not only resembles, but is equivalent to a sufficiently justified belief. Before, I said that truth is some abstract “out there” concept that I can’t talk about and that humans just can’t fathom. So I talked about knowledge instead. Well, I’m changing my definition of truth to be more down to Earth – more accessible to human beings. I will talk as though truth and knowledge are magnitudes of justification.

Knowledge is a justified belief, and truth is a deeply justified belief. What does it mean to be justified? And what is the difference between justified and deeply justified? It’s hard to explain. In fact, I’m not really sure how to explain.

Anyway, something that has always happened is true. For instance, ancient peoples saw the sun rise every morning, so they made it a truth that the sun would always rise. They were sufficiently justified. Later people discovered that the Earth rotates around the sun, creating the illusion that the sun is rising and setting. That was their truth. Today, astronomers know that the sun and the Earth will eventually die. That is their truth.

Okay, this is a funky definition of truth.

Truth is, by nature, falsifiable. If an extremely justified theory suddenly becomes massively unjustified, it is discarded and a new truth emerges.

The more that a truth is justified, the stronger it becomes. A proposition that corresponds to that truth is true. So what if someone else holds a strongly justified truth that contradicts yours?

Well, then you should have a friendly argument.

People can have contradictory truths. An individual can have contradictory truths. Anyone can have a truth at one moment, and have the opposite truth at another.

For the most part, truth is by definition pretty rock solid. It isn’t subject to weather everytime there is a storm. So truths don’t usually change on a whim. But it’s possible for truths to change.

I once thought up a short story of a dark, mechanical city of faceless people. four of the wisest leave the city in search of something more… but they are all disappointed in some way. I don’t remember the story very well. one person travels upstream a river. He comes across the source of the river. A great wall of melting ice and encased in the ice is the greatest people in world history standing like mighty giants. even Jesus is there frozen in the ice, and in his place there is the crack where the water flows into a river. the river is his own tears.

I’ll explain what the allegory represents. The people are faceless and nameless because they lost their individuality. The city is dark and mechanical because humankind has destroyed the light and flora of nature. The wise men leave the city to rediscover themselves, their human heritage. The great people in the wall of ice represents the immortality of their legacy. The melting ice and the river represent that the legacy is decaying. Jesus is crying because humanity has completely lost its way.

people these days are really fake. really, really fake. so fake that it exercises my gag reflexes.

I call it the cult of fakeness (I just now made up that name). It seems to have consumed my generation.

Having the latest gadget does not make you cool. I have a dell laptop that was at the end of its product cycle two years ago. It has minimal features. It is reliable. But there are people who say, “Hey, why’re you carrying around that dinosaur?” Those are the people who have trendy bags for their slick macbooks. But I’m an expert coder. I have the best software. I’m dual boot with Linux, fluent in both. My laptop is fast because I cut the fat. In my mind, it is the skill that is more important than the tool. Functionality over form. But the cult of fakery is all about the latest – and we can see why that is stupid, because windows vista sucks, the iPhone is extremely overrated (in my opinion), and the reception of the ps3 has been slow on the uptake.

I don’t buy video game consoles. I play snes and n64 roms – I have for the last decade or so. When people see me, they are shocked. Of course I play modern games when I’m with my friends, but I enjoy playing older games in my free time. Just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s bad. That’s another thing about the cult of fakery – it’s all about grabbing the new and throwing out the old. It’s a culture of waste.

Kids that I’ve known from a young age are suddenly black wannabes – flashing gang signs, talking in mock-ebonics calling me a nigga and girls shawty, dressing to be fly. They crash the clubs every weekend (the scene is hot in Austin), rolling in gangs of other wannabe niggas and checking out women like they were meat. When one rap song gets hot, everybody listens to it all the time. Then they crunk and grind and drink and brag about it afterwards.

And girls are more shallow than ever. What you see on facebook is not what you get in real life. Photos of scantily-clad girls and their girlfriends making pouty faces, seductive poses. When I talk to one of these girls, all they care about is dancing, drinking, and having sex. Not that any of those things are bad, but to make that the central purpose of your lifestyle? Girls are all about fashion, about pretending to be someone else.

Entertainment news. The paparazzi catches a once-in-a-lifetime topless or crotch shot. Celebrity couples get together. Then they break up. They have babies. They give the baby an odd name. They go to prison. They follow a strange religion. They say something about someone. They die. They release sex videotapes. They help people in Africa. They did something stupid when they were drunk. They go to rehab for taking drugs.

And the cult of fakeness follows this 24-hour news coverage, if not on tv then in magazines. Then they gossip about it non-stop. It becomes the subject of conversation with friends and small talk among strangers.

Reality television. It is an oxymoron. Regular people with “unscripted” drama. I use double quotes because most of the bulk of reality television is SCRIPTED. People break up and cheat and get together.

This is what I think of the cult of fakeness. They are hiding insecurity. It is a social psychosis. That is to say that it is socially reinforced – people are rewarded for joining in fakeness, and punished for not joining in fakeness. Assholes, guys who are manipulative and domineering, get the girls. It is in a guy’s best interest to be an asshole. Girls who don’t put out are shut out.

The cult of fakeness is about being cool. And being cool means adhering to a code of social behavior that flips on a whim – what’s in style now wasn’t in style just a while ago. The cult of fakeness teaches you to not be yourself, in fact, to ignore your own instincts and intuitions, to lose your own individuality. The cult of fakeness teaches you to hate yourself, and to always think about what other people are thinking about and try to be like other people.

Life isn’t about impressing other people. Life is not about looking fly, having loose cash, getting hooked up with some hot bitches. Life is about being yourself, doing what you want to do and not what other people think you should do, and doing what really makes you happy. Being someone you’re not doesn’t make you happy. Be yourself, even if other people don’t like you.

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

The Devil’s Dictionary defines truth as so:

An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.

I couldn’t agree more.

A search query on google brings up links about the truth behind tobacco, global warming, 9/11 and Jesus Christ. But truth itself? There are some tepid articles on the philosophy of truth. Most of these articles are squabblings of the philosophers. There’s little consensus on truth. This is disparaging to me.

I will begin my examination in the most naïve way possible. What are contextual definitions of truth?

“I’m telling you the truth” – I am being honest.

“He has been true to his wife” – he has remained sexually faithful.

“She discovered the truth behind his assassination” – she found evidence that strongly suggests the cause of the incident.

“[It is true that] I murdered your husband” – it is the case that I have done this.

I could have easily looked up definitions in a dictionary, but I find this more useful (if not dramatic).

Anyway, truth is in some way related to knowledge. Knowledge is usually accepted as a true justified belief. Because truth is such an elusive thing, I transform it to the term knowledge.

The usage of the word ‘truth’ signifies some things that are attributable to ‘knowledge’. It is proper to define knowledge as a theory that is justified by empirical observation. But in order to properly ascertain knowledge, there are certain virtues of truth that make knowledge more accessible.

Honesty is conducive to knowledge. But technically only when honest intentions lead to expected consequences. Let us suppose you are lost on the road. You ask for directions. Now the man may have the intention to help you as most people do. But his directions may be wrong. Here is a philosophical squabble – what is more important, having good intentions or that there be good consequences? One might argue either way. But the practical answer is that it is better to have good intentions because we cannot be so sure about consequences. That is to say that the man giving faulty directions did have good intentions, so he is forgivable. It is a rule of thumb that honest intentions leads to reliable knowledge.

Openness is conducive to knowledge. If you are open, you are not hiding anything. If you are not hiding anything, you have less of a chance of overlooking some important knowledge.

Depth is conducive to knowledge. If you know very little about something, you must first question it. Knowledge is not something that only skims the surface. Knowledge is like a ocean if we might only swim to the lowest depths.

Experimentation, observation and empirical analysis are conducive to knowledge. Hell, the scientific method is the best model we know so far (expect the recent data cloud debate).

Skepticism is conducive to knowledge. Skepticism is what causes us to question something. If it turns out to be true, then our belief is reinforced. If it turns out to be false, our belief is thrown out.

Trust is conducive to knowledge. If people have established trust, they can spread knowledge amongst one another more easily. However, to blindly accept something is bad; there is a balance between skepticism and trust.

I was watching a TED lecture by Amy Tan on creativity. Not expecting much, I actually learned some things. And surprisingly, what I learned wasn’t about how to be more creative (though that was part of it), I learned something about life that I’m grateful Amy Tan was able to share.

She says in her speech, “There are no absolute truths.” This really struck me, because for so long I’ve agreed with the same sentiment, but I’ve never actually heard anyone say it. She said that there is ambiguity – uncertainty (she uses ‘quantum mechanics’ as a metaphor), anxiety, moral dilemma, indentity dilemma, dilemma about what to do in life and what it means and what is death…

Anyway, she says that ambiguity is good. She says there are no absolute truths, but she focuses on the specifics of the time and place, and thinks about how it all connects. She accepts the subtle things that most people overlook, but she QUESTIONS it. Not questioning in the way a scientist would, but akin to that. It’s questioning like… what is the deeper purpose behind it? What is the theme? She personally looks at luck and fate. She sees so many coincidences and in trying to make sense of it she gains inspiration for her writing.

She says that ambiguity is good because it means that there is something there to discover. Wow. That’s beautiful…

All this time, really, I’ve been living as if ambiguity is bad. I am deathly afraid of uncertainty, and I am a very uncertain person. I talk about epistemology and what consequences it has on my life that I don’t know what I know! And that’s really scary to me, but Amy says that her creativity is spurned by those ‘nightmares’.

As part of her 3 n’s, she also has nature and nurture.

I feel like her acceptance of ambiguity, and her transformation of this into fictional writing is impressive. It reminds me of Buddhism.

I want to really understand and face this uncertainty. I want to feel all this anxiety and depression that I feel, and know that it’s a result of my uncertainty. But I also want to fully realize what Amy Tan is saying, that ambiguity is a GOOD thing. It’s such a hard concept to grasp for most people who tend to be controlling and perfectionistic like me. But it is kind of a form of therapy, I believe.

I’ve been neglecting creativity because I didn’t feel that it was important. I think I should update my model on ‘knowledge’ and say that it is both the understanding of existing concepts and the generation of new ones. That’s information in an evolutionary way, right? The creative aspect is what spurns innovative ideas, whereas the analytical aspect considers if it is feasible and how to implement it. This is the crossroads of art and science, and I want to understand how this works in a way that is satisfiable to me.

I’ve thought about – creativity is a bridge between truth and freedom. Because, creativity is the invention of new ideas, which mothers the fostering of new ability.

Finally, I don’t know if transforming ambiguity into creativity is the ONLY solution to becoming comfortable with uncertainty, but it certainly is a way which Amy Tan is able to master.