the need to need

the need to need
I read an interesting article about the necessity of need. Human brain still needs to need something otherwise it can get no satysfication and that is the reason why children today are never satisfied-because the satisfaction comes only when one has to strive for something-anything. if the child gets everything for nothing, then it cannot be happy with it. I only value money once I start earning, when the child gets money for free then it cannot learn to use it reasonably. we may even go so far as to say that happiness lies not in some constant or continual state of existence but rather it is the Gauss curve of or daily life. Once one is up and once one is down. The happiness comes after one is down and the down is invaluable for us-otherwise we would not be up. Having said this, we see that those who try to avoid pain and go only for pleasure are those who may never reach happiness and who go against the principle of happiness. unfortunately, this is all of us. We all avoid pain, not only physical, and we all go for pleasure. This is also the mechanism of brain as well as the need to experience sour and bitter in order to appreaciate the sweet. How can we cope with this paradoxical, almost schizophrenic situation? In the first place, I think that we need to postulate that happiness and unhappiness both form the state that we are in and that is inevitable for living. It is a neverending process. If it is not rational enough, let us understand that without pain, there would be no pleasure. Pleasure that is received instantly is usually short termed and not really pleasurable in the sense of making us happy. Happiness is more a spiritual term and physiological. We may be happy also when we are in pain and sick. This may be a bit overstatement but take martyrs who lost life for a good cause- be them religions or not religions. There is a great movie called The Life of David Gale which is about a death watch director who opposes the death penalty by showing that the system is not perfect. He devises a plot that makes him a murderer and is convinced to a capital punishment. After he is executed, a tape is found (by Gale) that shows that he was not a murderer and that the system kills innocent people. I think that Gale could have felt a great although quite bizzare happiness in dying as a martyr. This happiness stretches then further than is the horizon of our lifes. Something that emantates from us but gues even deeper than is our existance. I think that it is the happiness we are all destined for. The only thing we need to do is to accept that our body is not all that matters-it is not the ultimate goal-to live as long as possible, but the ultimate goal is to use the body for higher purposes than are those of the body itself (procreating, food, sleep etc.). Once we accept this postulate we see that we are not so much plagued by what ills us-bodily pains because we see that the body is only a tool for reaching higher aims. If we see our body only as a tool for something more than preserving the body as long as possible we see that what happens to the body is not something that should be taken catastrophic or detrimental. We use the tool that we have and if the tool changes, the end of the world is not toppical but only a change of form must come- a different approach to what we do but the content remains the same.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisements
Standard

Inadequacy of tria politica divison of power

Inadequacy of tria politica divison of power
the system of divison of power in the traditional democratic model of most western countries that separate the power into three or two branches is I think the most of peoples invention concerning politics. the cheques and balances system which is functioning allows all of the three branches to stop the other one or two and at the same time does not give it a full power. I would agree that the three branches model is more or less practical and less corruptable than the two branches. Naturally, with more people in power, more burreacracy emerges. If we take the executive, legislative and judiciary power we see that the executiva and legislative (sometimes merged into just one) have a similar content, they differ in the form mostly. What strikes me as inadequate is the content. In my country as in most other democratic countries functioning under this system the government is formed from the executive branch. The executive branch is divided into lower and higher chamber-house of deputies and the senate. The government is formed from the parties that gain above 5 percent in the lower chamber and which form the coalition together. Here I come to the key problem as I see it. The executive should be separate form the legislative but once the governement (executive) is formed from the house of deputies-lower house (legislative) then there is only a fine line between these two. There are the same people in the governement-in executing power and in creating laws-legistlative proces. I think that this merger could be avoided when either the government would not be formed from the same people or if they had to leave their former positing in the legislature, or if the legislative proces would be left to the senate only-which is chosen in different time than the house of deputies. we must also always bear in mind that the system is created by people and that even the best system of cheques and balances can be corrupt. We must always come back to the nature of man. To get the best of us we need to talk-talk with the aim of creating bonum comuned, talk dialectically, lead a dialogue that is constructive and not egoistical. Here we come to the interpelation issue. I think that the milestone of any system is that the one who takes too much power can be stopped and asked to explain ones steps. This is what interpelation is about. I think that it stems from the common sense and also chart of rights and liberties. The right to ask and require an answer for actions pursued by the politicians we chose. Interpelation should be considered a tool to create and construct and inhibit evil thoughts and actions. The first sign that someone wants to wield more power than one is allowed to is the fear of interpelationl. Once one avoids questions by senate, press or other instituions then we should be on guard against the one. This happened in my coutnry where the prime minister is charged by police for stealing money in grants for his farm. The first sign that something is not correct was when he started avoiding questions about it. A great mechanism of interpelation is that the more one hides the truth, the more is one conspicuious and the more questions one receives. If we do not let ourselves be deceived by inadequate answers or devoured by the system to also avoid interpelation, then we may be sure that the dialogue that must be satisfying all our questions will be followed.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

fighting addictions

fighting addictions
I read about a man who killed a pimp who was using the mans sister for prostitution and who was sentenced to a death penalty for that crime. I ask myself whether this act should be seen as crime or not. From the first view it is obviously a murder. The girl should have contacted police if she felt mishandled or forced into prostituion. The same could have been done by her brother. on the other hand, police cannot force a woman to stop prostutiting herself if she does not want to and maybe the brother was so despondent that did not see any other way out. I do understand this situation nevertheless it is obvious that by killing one man the problem is not solved. the problem is endemic to our nature. If we kill only what answers to the evil within us, then we do not destroy the impetus, evil within ourselves but only its ramifications and consequences-this would be a neverending story. it is like closing one pub and the alcoholics then going to another. even after all pubs would be closed, the alcoholic would not be healed. on the other hand, should the opportuninty diminish or fade out totally, then the alcohol would not be so easy to get and one would not continue with it. same with prostutition. once the prostitution would be banned, we would probably have fewer cases like that above mentioned but we would not heal the impetus that is within people that visit and pay these women. it is a vicious circle and what is necessary is to begin within ourselves. usually the need to visit prostitues is some kind of dissatisfaction with something. this may be a family situation, occupation, on other words some outer factor. for a strong personality, this would not be a reason for starting doing something vicious like drinking, taking drugs, paying prostitutes etc. nevertheless, we people are weak and once something does not work out for ourselves we try to use it some other, usually easier way but such way can be and is very often detrimental-for example procuring money in automats where addition may arise very quickly. so the solution is both ways-from inside and from outside. on the outside the powers that be should not make it so easy to procure addictive stuf like drugs, alcohol etc and there also need to be a psychological support for people who may fall into depression once a difficult situation arises. the support may not be a kind of official or trained psychologist but rather a natural web of people that we have and create systematically and continually. not with the calculative reason in mind that the more friends i have the more I can be helped by, but also with the responsiblity that the more people I know can need help from me.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Extremes in showbusiness and society, sexual misconduct and the change of paradigm

deceitful side of showbusiness
I read a complaint by a comedian in showbussiness that one is only as good as ones last show. that means that the true essence of showbusiness is not something lasting, but somehing ephemeral, something that must always provide quick feelings of pleasure that can pass as quickly as they arose and that one must always struggle for ones place up. This is exact opposite to the approach that teaches Christianity. The unconditional love of all people no matter what they do or how good they are. take for example handicapped people or people with mental or other disabilities or just people who may not have some official diagnosis but yet are not capable of living and understanding everything or are just a bit slow in head. all people have been endowed with certain gifts and we must see the gifts in all people, not just those that are adored for their abilities because the abilities are very often given to them as a gift. the paradigm of todays world or society may not necessarily be the same in ten years time and what was once considered good or admirable may be reversed. what was considered evil or sick can turn vica versa-take for example homosexuality. Formerly homosexuals were considered sick and today we have gay pride parades. It seems to me that one extreme turns to the opposite extreme. Another good example is sexual harrasment. After the Harvey Weinstein affair many other women and also men have stepped out about sexual misconduct against them. Until that it becomes another extreme this might be considered as a good think. I read an article where a succesful director talked against seeing all mens allusions as predatory. He himself has a happy marriage and his wife was very adamant in declining his offers. he was very active in courting her until she finally ˋgave upˋ. Here we see that on one hand women are glad that they are mens target of attention- naturally when it is attention that is not harrasing. today the approach changes into the paradigm that sees even these acts of proclivity and affection towards a woman as sexually allusive. should these be considered harrasing in the time of their relationships, the woman might have called the police and not only there would be not marriage but also there might be a legal process against the man. this example may not be totally objective and I do not say that men should not be inhibited in some of their manners, but I also must add that we should be afraid of turning one extreme (silence of women) into the other (seeing all manifestations of interest in woman by man as predatory).


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

What is jealousy

What is jealousy
I heard a story from a collegue that told me that once her husband started doing night shifts, she started to be very upset and nervous about it. He started working in a sheltered housing where he had night shifts with other woman colleagues and she was anxious whether there is not a possibility of him cheating on her. I asked myself how come that these feelings arise. It is of course natural that these thoughts come up but what is the impetus for these thoughts? I realized that the more one thinks about the adultery of the partner, the more is either dependent on him or her or the more oneself thinks about cheating. there are of course other factors not less important like trust, mutual understanding, sharing and so on, but I think that the intrinsic bend towards a certain asset of human behaviour in oneself is also seen in others. it may be either something one has, or something on deficits. The latter option is more frequent I think. What I do not possess I usually want others to have. FOr example when one is not calm and composed usually want others to be so that one gains the composure from them. We also envy people that have what we do not have or what we do not have so much developed. hatred is basically misunderstanding or envy. The impulse to hate someone is either something I really do not like about the one but also the fact that he has something better than me. something to envy. these issues stem very often from misunderstanding – the one, or onself. on the other hand, when one thinks about the partner as a potential cheater, then one also is afraid of oneself cheating on the partner. If one knows about the possibility of adultuery but does not take it seriously (I do not say condescendingly) but with intrinsic trust towards the one, then one should not be afraid of it. when one takes the possibility of adultery seriously although one does not have objective reasons to feel so (misunderstanding, problems in communication, reproaches, accusations) then there is a possiblity that the one also has the will or impetus to cheat hidden somewhere beneath the surface. relationships of any kind must be build on mutual trust and openess to discuss even these uncomfortable topics otherwise the space for misunderstanding and possible conflicts increases.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Parable about a cross

Parable about a cross
I was at a confession yesterday and complained about my feeling that I do not know how to let relationship grow but not in sin but in love. I complained that I sometimes feel as if Christs prescripts (although I know I want to fulfill them) inhibit our relationship. The priest used a very nice parable which compared relationships to the Cross that is at the alter and which at the first sight creates a barrier between people and the priest. The cross is there in order to make us look up to it, not make a barrier. It should be same with relationships-be them romantic, friendship, at workplace etc. What inhibits us is not Christ, he gives us full freedom to do what we want to do. We are inhibiting ourselves which is even better, because we know his word and are not afraid of fulfilling it. I realized that I should not be afraid about what I do and I also should not feel guilty if I make a mistake. I should rather be happy that I know how to distinguish good from evil and how to reflect it for my future actions. Let us not think that we shall be perfect after the confession. It is good to know that we sin and that we shall always be purified if we let ourselves into Gods arms. This does not say that we may sin as we like-not at all. It only means that absolute purification and potentical redemption comes only after we acknowledge that we sin and that we may sin in the future, but at the time of the confession we must always be fully aware of the mental decision that we do not want to do the sin again.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

What kind of defence is acceptable when one is attacked

What kind of defence is acceptable when one is attacked
I read an article about a man who was attacked and was so skillful to defence oneself and even hurt the attacker, although not intentionally. The court decided that the attacked man was in the end the culprit because the attacker suffered and sustained more damage and health problems than the formerly attacked man. I think that this outcome of the court is ridiculous. I understand and accept the postulate that defence must be adequate to the intensity of the attack, not more. On the other hand, how can one measure it? if one ones to stab me, then breaking his hand in order to defend myself is inadequate? of when I suffere a stab into my hand, then a stab into his leg is inadequate? or belly to neck? This discussion is in my view pointless. If one is attacked, then the defence can be virtually subjectively perceived. I even dare to say that if one is attacked and is in the danger of life, then it is possible and should not be considered a criminal act when the attacker is killed by the victim. There is easy logic in it. The victim would not show any kind of violence should the attacker not pursue his action. Here we see that the behaviour of the victim is caused by the attacker and the attacker must then count with even the worst scenario ever- because the attacker is the impulse for this behaviour. it is not possible to say that the attacker this to himself that he tries to rob someone and if the victim manages to defend then it cannot hurt the attacker because he did not want to hurt only rob. even more true is that the victim cannot know that the aim of the attacker is not to hurt but only rob. I think that such paradigm is ridiculous. In my view if one decides to do something unlawful then one should be ready to accept any kind of retaliation because it is everything caused the attacker. Take for example a rape. Imagine a woman being raped and during the intercourse she manages somehow to stab the rapist and untimately kill him. Should she be viewed as guilty? I do not think so. Naturally, a court would not plead guilty the man with a life imprisonment or death penalty-capital punishment. nevertheless, the woman raped does not think about killing the man. did not think about it but the incentive was on the side of the man. she only responded as best as she could. even if got so angry as to kill him although she could only cause him unconscious, even then I would not consider it a homicide because although she did use inadequate defence, all she did was to respond to his action. should he not do it, then she would not use (in this case inadequate) defence.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard