I was contemplating something that happened a while back. Perhaps it isn't anything in particular, but just something rather odd.
I was hanging out with some people I knew, I guess you can call them friends, though not really close friends. And, as guys would have it, we started to boast about our past dealings with women, love, and the topic of virginity.
The time came around to share my story. My first time was with a gorgeous and beautiful girl. I started to explain how gorgeous she was, how beautiful she was. I started to say how I'm glad it wasn't with someone fat, ugly, and whom I'd regret. As with guys, and especially with guys you're not too close with, it's a topic where you don't necessarily share your deeper feelings. It as strictly a platonic bolster.
From the left rear seat, we'll call him G for the time being. He spoke up. He is a rather intellectual person, and highly opinionated.
"That's not how I'd like to remember my first time, I'd expect it to be deeper than that."
Something inside of me snapped.... How dare this pompous idiot tell me I'm shallow without even really knowing the full story.
I instantly responded with.
"Hey G, maybe you're right... Maybe I should remember her the way she really was. I should remember how I threw my heart and everything I had into our relationship, how much love I devoted to her and only her only to have my heart ripped into a thousand pieces by her cheating, lying, and cruel desires."
By this time, my car was quiet. I added, "but hey, at least she was cute."
Even to this day, that moment irritated me. Of course when G is around, I'll put in a smile and act friendly. But still it irritates me.
His overly opinionated position probably stems from his relative intellect with those around him. And perhaps that's what irritates me. Because I can identify with it, and luckily I have grown out of it because of the environment I've been fortunate to have.
G isn't used to being challenged by someone of equal or greater intellect than himself, he's used to people relying on what he says to be truth, or at least logically inductive truth. Well tough, I'm smarter than you G. I don't say this out of empty bolster, I simply am. I don't take the crap that comes out of your mouth as gold. And... I have actively sought out people who are of equal intellect if not above that of my own. I value their input, I value their views, I value their constructive criticism on what I think is right or wrong. And I have grown, since I was a kid, to accept when I am wrong.
In fact, I have been told that I'm wrong about everything since I was a kid. Never did I doubt my parents on this issue until the evidence that I was correct was so undeniably blatant, did I admit to myself, that I was actually right for once.
Unfortunately, that has left a scar on my confidence, and I usually try to seek justification from someone else to validate my actions. Though, I've gotten better, there's still a hint of it every so often.
From all the time I've known G, he hasn't once admitted about being wrong about anything. And, even when I've called him on a bunch of crap he's spewed out, he still won't admit it.
Sorry G, Just because you've never been around anyone as smart as you or smarter, doesn't give you the license to assume anything of anyone, or how they should think, act, or even choose to remember. And because I am smarter than you, I will shut you down for every bullshit that comes out of your mouth. I don't care if you've never encountered that in the past, your word is not gold. I don't care if you've surrounded yourself with people who do take your word as gold. I find real friends are those who don't take your word for gold, nor do they think your words are nothing but bullshit.
End of rant.
Showing posts with label past. Show all posts
Showing posts with label past. Show all posts
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
If I were Omnipotent, I'd kill myself.
A god who is both omnipotent and omnipresence is contradictory.
Sometimes this contradiction is hard to see, so let me show you a different way to understand it.
Think of "seeing the future" as if you were watching a VHS tape. Except, you're watching it in reverse.
Let's say it's a tape of a railroad trip.
You see yourself arrive at your San Francisco destination.
As the tape reverses, you see yourself get on the train.
After a few min, you board at San Jose.
As you approach the ticket stand, What do you think you said to the ticket vendor?
Would it matter if you said you wanted a ticket to Oakland?
No, it wouldn't matter, you know you will end up at San Francisco for one reason or another. You already know the destination despite the decision.
To "change the future" we'll have to look at a situation where we can see and change the actions dynamically, this is done by a domino rally pattern that forks into two.
However, there is a switch that only allows one of those forks to go on, the other goes in another direction. If you place a red piece at the end of the right fork, knowing it will be knocked down; you are basically seeing the future.
However, because you want to change the future, you switch it to the left position, when you set it off, the red one will NOT be knocked down, invalidating your red domino prediction. Therefore you did not see the actual future.
Some would argue, What if you switch the red domino to the left branch, it'd work. It's a short sighted argument. You really haven't changed the future, you've just stepped back to square one.
Some would argue, maybe omnipotence is knowing all possibilities of the future. Therefore it wouldn't be contradictory to choose one of those as it's actual event. Again, it is a short sighted argument. Once one of these possibilities is chosen, all other possibilities are false futures, and again you're back to square one.
There still is only one red domino.
If you can see the future, you can not change it.
If you can change the future, you haven't really seen the future.
Maybe your definition of omnipresence is that of the now, not of the future. Unfortunately, that's not very all-knowing.
Sometimes this contradiction is hard to see, so let me show you a different way to understand it.
Think of "seeing the future" as if you were watching a VHS tape. Except, you're watching it in reverse.
Let's say it's a tape of a railroad trip.
You see yourself arrive at your San Francisco destination.
As the tape reverses, you see yourself get on the train.
After a few min, you board at San Jose.
As you approach the ticket stand, What do you think you said to the ticket vendor?
Would it matter if you said you wanted a ticket to Oakland?
No, it wouldn't matter, you know you will end up at San Francisco for one reason or another. You already know the destination despite the decision.
To "change the future" we'll have to look at a situation where we can see and change the actions dynamically, this is done by a domino rally pattern that forks into two.
However, there is a switch that only allows one of those forks to go on, the other goes in another direction. If you place a red piece at the end of the right fork, knowing it will be knocked down; you are basically seeing the future.
However, because you want to change the future, you switch it to the left position, when you set it off, the red one will NOT be knocked down, invalidating your red domino prediction. Therefore you did not see the actual future.
Some would argue, What if you switch the red domino to the left branch, it'd work. It's a short sighted argument. You really haven't changed the future, you've just stepped back to square one.
Some would argue, maybe omnipotence is knowing all possibilities of the future. Therefore it wouldn't be contradictory to choose one of those as it's actual event. Again, it is a short sighted argument. Once one of these possibilities is chosen, all other possibilities are false futures, and again you're back to square one.
There still is only one red domino.
If you can see the future, you can not change it.
If you can change the future, you haven't really seen the future.
Maybe your definition of omnipresence is that of the now, not of the future. Unfortunately, that's not very all-knowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)