Murder and Birth are the Same

It is far easier to do without than to have to lose. Bringing someone into this world is equivalent to ending a mature life. Both conditions require that one decides the fate of another, both are done without consent, and both will change the world irrevocably.

I lost my father not one year ago, and from this experience I can say how much more neurotic and fearful I am towards my mother. Every time I am not in her presence I expect a phone call or news report telling me she is dead. I cannot approach her room at night without fearing the trauma of seeing her cold, wan face tucked beneath the covers, with death her final blanket. 

I Don't Do Much of Anything

I am the cleanest person you will ever meet. I don't do a single drug, legal or otherwise besides the occasional glass of red wine. Not even a painkiller or antihistamine will breach my lips. So it is not chemical addiction that has made me a failure.

I resist virtually every new trend and whatever advice anyone has to give me. I don't want help - in fact, I despise it. I get caught in cycles where new ideas and innovations are flying around me, but I remain in my cocoon of old British comedies, theoretical physics and a never-ending march of data to my hippocampus that I never put to good use. In other words, it's all input and no output, and it's always been this way.

I can't interact with a lot of my peers as I haven't experienced nearly the same amount of things they have. I can't comment on sports, parties, bars, clubs, or drugs, and virtually all social events. I don't use a popular computer, operating system, or utilize the same software as most people I know, nor do I use most of it productively.

All in all, my life is about resistance, not creation. Don't live this way or you will be a shell, a cipher, a loser for the rest of your miserable life.

A Non-Theistic Explanation of Coincidence

I have at times stood baffled at how coincidence has struck at some of the most improbable times, marveling at the possibility of a higher order that might be sending me a message. I pass Lark Lane and suddenly hear the lyric "lark" on my radio just a few seconds later.
    But the same logic and reason that motivates the sciences and reveals hidden mechanisms of reality is also in play here. Like-minded people often seek out their own kind. They will often go to similar venues and like similar things. The chances of them meeting the other are not so improbable that God has to come into play. The same can be said of immaterial objects popping up when one least expects them. The careful deliberation of one engineering radio station manager can receive inspiration from nature, play a corresponding song, get you to focus on that one word and viola - we have the coincidence.

Those who disgust me

    Privileged people who self-medicate deserve no respect. They rarely have the excuse of congenital defects or a disability gained late in life. Their claim to fame is starting with more than most and throwing it away. These people have not the courage or the will to face reality on their own. They would rather delude themselves  with their drugs to lessen the pain they cannot bear. It is the acme of cowardice. How fitting, then, that those who have given in to quotidian addiction are the most obsessed with overcoming their addiction? They realize the trap of dependency but gain such knowledge too late, long after they last approached the world with a clear mind.

Practical Obsessions

It can be a great boon if one is able to tap into latent obsessions. As a sufferer of ADHD I know well the procrastination and doubt that comes with perfectionism and discomfort avoidance, but I have always found comfort in silent, uninterrupted meditations on the fixation of my choice. The issue is maintaining practical interests. Save for approximately 1.25 years of my life I have been a non-starter. I was so afraid of the discomfort, so petrified of the possibility that my efforts would reveal my own ineptitude that I simply did not try to succeed. Projects and jobs that involved prolonged thinking and action were aggravating to me. This is merely a symptom of the inability to utilize my mind's natural affinity for order and consistency, obsessed as I am with negative consequences.

That one year was a productive one for me, although it did not attain the perfection I sought. Attuned though I was to the study of English and history I would write far more than was required of me. A simple one-page assignment on Mongols would lengthen to ten or more pages; a creative writing story was overdue a week but rang in at an enriching 18 pages. A biology lab was deemed the opus of my teacher's classes; she recovered a copy and used it as an example for classes to come. But when my interested was not piqued I meandered through the assignment, dismissing the significance of being on the honour roll for the entire year, and not just when it was easy. My spare time was spent transcribing vocabulary words into my private database, an effort I took on without much issue. But after this unremitting focus collapsed I was back where I started. There is no hopeful conclusion here.

Disputing Miracles

    News has recently revealed improvement in Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's condition after being shot through the head by Jared Lee Loughner late last week. Gifford has shown movement in her left hand since Monday, and was able to move her arms and legs and sit up with assistance. The attending neurosurgeon, Dr. Michael Lemole calls her improvement "a major milestone" and added, "We're wise to acknowledge miracles."
    Claims of the miraculous, or phenomena that apparently break with the constitution of nature have never been substantiated by scientific or even conventional means. Hearsay and unfounded speculation are the main currency of miracles.
    The common source of purportedly miraculous results is divine intervention. It must be asked: is a god capable of miracles truly doing us a service by creating or allowing problems and then fixing them? Would it not be better if such things were prevented? One might argue that these are tests, that these occurrences make us stronger. Any evidence to support the existence of a god or to support this myopic notion have yet to be presented. What business does a god have in testing or making us more resilient? Is that just or fair? Is that loving, as many fundamentalist Christians would argue? If one is able to prevent harm but does nothing, at the very least it is indifferent, perhaps even curious. At worst it is malicious. If this god is the source of harm it is fair to say it is not benevolent. Thankfully, the evidence for such a deity does not exist.
    Theists would contend that our actions are not prevented, only judged so as to determine one's suitability for a heavenly existence. In this context free will is sacrosanct and for that reason alone, God will not intervene to stop a shooter, a suicide bomber, biological warfare, or any sort of catastrophe that was spawned in the depths of humanity. A deist might argue in contradiction to this benighted supposition by suggesting that a creating deity is not in control of its creations, merely responsible for bringing them into being. In either case the burden of proof rests with them, not with the scientific community that seeks to deduce the world using protocol, evidence, and reason.

How the World is Run

    The world is separated into three groups: engineers, facilitators, and consumers. Engineers are responsible for monumental and/or lasting creations, development that moves society in general. These are the folks behind the major commercial websites and enterprises, the ones who found something quite literally world-changing. Then there are facilitators, those who primarily are well-trained and can fit into systems very well. They are beholden to the engineers of this world, for it is they who understand on a fundamental level the knowledge with which facilitators work. Facilitators can also be thought of as developers. Lastly we have consumers, the lowest of the low outside of a special category, the dependents (i.e., those who are physically and/or mentally incapable of independent living). Consumers are the regular blokes that use iPods and computers and other advanced technologies without asking or being able to understand the hows and whys of living in an increasingly complex world.

It might also be said that humans are either imaginative, constructive, or creative. Creativity is something I define slightly differently than most life coaches or dictionaries, and it is a quality I hold in highest regard. Constructive is to coding what creative is to programming. One doesn't merely visualise the solution, he creates the scaffold for himself and everyone else to use. Imagination is essentially the conception of a potential reality or aspect of life. It is the attempt to alter and augment our current existence using vivid imagery, painting with your mind without the physical steps to back them up. That is the function of construction, or the process of building. Too often we see the wildly imaginative paired with the binding impracticality of ignorance and ineptitude; so too can we observe a tool remaining too basic to elevate our general lives. Creative humans have no equal, having both the insight and the ability to fundamentally alter society.

Where do you fit in?

Traits and Phenomena Often Mistaken for Intelligence

1) Expertise
2) Success
3) Timing (or, "age of success")
4) Smooth diction, especially emotional rhetoric
5) Academic achievement
6) Multitasking
7) Memory
8) Speed, duration, and spontaneity of cogent speech
9) Training (particularly when combined with Timing, or starting age)
10) Wisdom

On "Spontaneous and Unassisted Acquisition of Knowledge"

Whether you do is far more important than how you do it. Reinventing and rediscovering are largely a waste. Attempting to reverse engineer all your have been exposed to is also folly. Do not spend your life trying to "figure it all out" yourself, something I have tried to do because of ego. The sense of pride that may result from teaching oneself and ignoring history pales in comparison to the time that could have been spent performing. Do not allow disputes over method create inaction. I will explain why, until very recently I thought it shameful to rely on what history had established, assuming instead that I alone was capable of explicating all concepts. I believed in the original notion, the first time our species understood a non-evident method or principle that would establish reproducible techniques for accomplishing higher functions. It takes little  imagination at all to imagine how the hammer, the aqueduct, or the wheel were invented; I can formulate many scenarios for the natural predecessors that would have inspired our forebears. A rock tumbling down a hill or a log rolling could have led to the wheel; primitive smashing using a rock could transform into a hammer quite naturally. It was advanced technology that bewitched and tortured me, the inventions that one would not immediately produce: the piano, the microprocessor, the Marconi wireless transmitter. All of these relied on past knowledge that I ignored in my arrogance to prove myself above these parasites who could not think for themselves, who had to consume past successes rather than comprehend all on their own. The heroism of being the sole holder of methods enthralled me; it ended up ruling my actions.
     Do you wonder how standards have been set? Do you feel like you are following some else's script and methods? Are you always questioning why you must learn something a particular way, being fed through a mechanism you had no part in creating? Do you think everyone is merely a consumer of previous knowledge with naught but force-fed information in their heads as they do not comprehend anything on the most fundamental level (i.e., subatomic)? Do you believe that those who set society's standards possess an objective understanding of reality while you do not?

Do not assume that great inventors and thinkers simply "knew" out of thin air. It is not magic or divine inspiration that allowed a man to walk on the moon or develop calculus. As baffling as their origins might be to the ignorant bystander, do not wonder, "how did they do that?" and compare your skill-set and intelligence to theirs. This can confine your pragmatic imagination to their methods and their knowledge instead of creating useful thinking in your own life. Ask yourself how you would undertake this task. It is ultimately insane to believe one can meditate long enough on a problem and produce all contingencies - such as knowing all the components needed for a submarine and what they do - simply because one has thought about it long enough.

I have been under this impression for most of my life, believing that the creation of any advanced technology involved a leap of logic and thinking without the assistance of our forebears. The satellite baffled me; the particle accelerator ruined my confidence; and not knowing the back-story of early successes caused me much grief. I did not want to pick up a book or do a web search to answer my questions about coding, science, and mathematics, or anything I believed my logic could uncover. Esoteric knowledge, such as a friend's previously unexpressed thought, was of course happily learned; but everything else fell into the category of something I must do myself. I assumed that there must have been some in history who did not have previous information available to them. I thought, "If they had original thoughts and discoveries without assistance it was due to a superior mind. I must rediscover all principles for myself." It was precisely this attitude that made me loathe schooling. After all, how can one enjoy school if he despises being taught anything?
    But it was not the positive "can-do" attitude of an autodidact that motivated me. Jealousy and delusion were my main fuels. I assumed that success was above me, a quality that happened to others due to their innate ability to "put it all together." Puzzles, quizzes and other games of intellect were not challenges but insults to my personal crusade to use only the most basic inherited knowledge to understand everything. It was this psychological limitation that caused me to not accept teaching and instead withdraw into a shell of arrogant possibilities for the future. I encourage anyone who feels burdened by another's advancement to examine what is lacking in one's own approach to knowledge.

    In reality, it doesn't matter when you learned something or how you learned it. If you want to live with your excuses because you feel it is too late to start, then prepare to live with your excuses and your failure for your entire life. You may save yourself the pain of effort and training, but in the end you have nothing. Your zeal to avoid failure that reminds you of how inadequate you are compared to  these "young success stories" is a hopeless and useless road. I must repeat that you will have nothing if you choose to follow this path.