Euthanasia

Is suicide or putting an end to one’s own existence a contemptible and cowardly act? That it is contemptible it is arguable, but to put end to one´s own existence requires courage, and a high sense of appreciation of life; the estimation of the value of an individual’s existence; the estimation of the value of your own existence.  

First of all, why should the act of suicide be a contemptible act? If we think of scenarios where people put end to their own existence, like for instance, a young lady who takes her own life by drowning in the sea, it is difficult to tell what makes this act contemptible in itself rather than tragical. For something to be a contemptible act, it requires that the act in question (suicide) has to be dishonourable, or worthless, as if the act were an improper modification of the natural order of things, as though to live (to exist) were a duty of a high divine order. Death is the natural and inexorable destiny of life; whatever comes into being also passes away, just as an indivisible instant ceases to be as soon as another new instant supersedes it, and so on ad infinitum. This truth is not only about life but about time as well. In fact, existence comes into mind through the temporalization of being.

If the young lady had her reasons for putting an end to her miserable existence, there is nothing more honourable than having the power of determination of taking power over her own destiny by her own hands; she takes control over her time being alive.  Perhaps she wasn’t able to escape a cruel reality peculiar to her own and distinct existence. If no one could tell or see the reason or motive why the young lady took her own life, then the act of suicide would be no more worthless than the act of striving for the prolongation of one's own existence when it becomes too miserable. The bewilderment lies in the incapability of understanding why someone who appears to be successful and with pleasant prospects in life, decides anyhow to put an end to his existence. When life prospers, it is worth living it.  A person who sees no worth in living begs the question (petitio principii) of another person who sees no worth in dying. The former may strive for the best way to die, whereas the latter for the best way to live. No one chooses to come into existence, it depends on an infinite amount of circumstances that not even the parents that chooses to bring a child into this world could escape. Once this is understood the notion of "freedom" is called into evaluation; Hume says that there is no freedom of choice unless there is freedom to refuse. You have no free will until you use your free will to refuse, for nothing in your will is free, but emanates strictly from necessity.

Suicide is regarded as contemptuous by an arbitrary judgement prompt by a sentiment of dread; the fear of the death, which is a natural sentiment of which living creatures have been endowed with. It is natural to fear death; its abhorrence lies in its emptiness, and this emptiness unveil the true nature of existence. Existence is emptiness of being, as a being which has never been, a being that has been but is no more; as a being that is now but ceases to be immediately as time proceeds, - as an instant that appears and disappears as soon as another instant emerges - as a being that (probably) will be but its being is not yet. There is nothing contemptuous in suicide but the fear of death at the moment it is embraced; it is the cessation of the continuity of being in space and time as one knows it, and the starting point for the bewildering nature of noumena. It is true that for most animals, and for life in general, the striving for the continuity of the own existence is the norm, but it is also true that life is always at risk, that life's delicate  and ephemerous existence is always vanishing and regenerating itself.

An individual’s existence becomes miserable whenever suffering and pain, caused by the sentiments of shame, humiliation, disappointment, blow, setback, or  any other kind of misfortune appears in its existence. Existence is a  relief and a tragedy; it is a becoming and passing away, in the sense of coming-into-be and ceasing-to-be. Schopenhauer says, in the relation of being to existence, that the emptiness of existence consist "in the contingency and relativity of all things; in continual becoming without being." The tragedy of existence is the annihilation of Being, the acknowledgement that Being in itself is almost as empty; its nature is diaphanous and reduces reality to an experience of ghostly character.     

Anarcho-syndicalism - Foucault & Chomsky

This debate is one of the most interesting I´ve seen in recent times, is about Anarcho-syndicalism. Foucault was a great analytical philosopher, instead of learning from history as such, he was able to indicate the spots in which the structural forces that configure the political power acts and settles. And the places in which such power is concealed plausibly lies behind the curtains of neutrality, thus neutrality is a diplomatic tool or method used to garnish many autocratical institutions, such as schools, hospitals, volunteers organizations, religions etc.

Those structural forces have the capability to give us freedoms (optionally) and facilitations to learn and initiate ourselves in new knowledges that generate certain skills. Those skills are supposed to serve for the good of the individual and therefore for the society in general as well. But those institutional powers also have the ability to deprive us of other kinds of knowledge. Why? Well that's a topic for research, although any kind of research emerges from speculations. That means that these speculations do not appear without reason, or more specifically, without a cause. No matter if the deductional calculation is wrong or not. I personally use to say; everyone thinks properly but some more than others.

The purely correctness is a paradox, cause how can you correct something that is correct? Perfection on the other hand is what we call; an ideal state with an ideal result. Perfection and correctness seems to be related to each other, since you can only reach perfection through correction, or at least that is how is supose to be. Chomsky is more positive and idealistic in his utterance while Foucault is more pesimistic but realistic about the problems we must confront.

Two thinkers that complete each other on their demands. enjoy!   

About complexity and methodologies - Fibonacci

Structure of DNA

It is amazing to see that human understanding is based on apprehension of patterns that, less or more, accurately approximates and fits into the reality we observe. Even if these patterns either are compound by the mere act of believing or perceiving or both, those patterns emerges in the mind alone. Being that the outside world is full of patterns,(geometrically; forms figures or numbers) that we either don't recognize they exist until we perceive them. Every thing that we see in the outside world seems to be different and distinct from one thing to another, however science has shown that all living organism are compound by what we call DNA, except the (RNA viruses). DNA sequences have structural purposes or are involved in regulating the use of genetic information, that information is recognise as a genetic language, the letters of the alphabet of DNA  A, C, T, G have an important role, since these have the function of encoding all the information necessary for life. This constance that language has very crucial role, not only for our cognitive economy but for life itself!

Mathematics has been devoted to represent the universal language, a language that establishes it self on natural universal laws ( which could be materialistic or laws applicable to matter ). These "universal" laws are important, since no matter where you are these laws are plausible and applicable dependently of how well you understand them and use them in the praxis, in other words those laws transcends in time. And if you have creativity enough  to find the similarities in apparently different things, then you have the keys to the doors of diverse knowledges and wisdoms. These keys are placed on grounds or fundaments shared by a diversity of knowledges. 

Mathematics are boring just because there's not enough motivation by the reader, and less motivation leads to less concentration, in turn everything seems to be pointless just because you don't understand enough. You are able to comprehend what the methods of reasoning (logical methods) are capable of, and it's potential, only when you understand them, or at least achieve a dimension of understanding. Reasoning is a matter of calculation and measurement with the finality of judgement. However, the action of judgment is present in everything we do. For a Psychological Diagnosis is better to ask a psychologist, for economical issues I better ask advice of an economist and for my physical health I should visit a medic and so on. But how much can we achieved by our selves? There's no human being that can live and transcend isolated, and so are the ideas, teachings or anything else related to the kind. I usually use to remark that in physics is well known that motion is generated by at least 2 particles, an isolated one scarce of movement and therefore dynamism. This is an approach to incentive the mathematical intrerest for the reader, I'm not saying that this is better knowledge than others teachings but a useful and subtle one. Motivation is a psychological factor that determines the way you behave into a specific situation. Motivation is alike a frame of mind which have the power of altering the concentration and therefore the intention.

I'm not gonna say no more, but this video shows the mystery of the mathematics. Enjoy!      

             

The Rosetta Stone

Jean-François Champollion deciphered the hieroglyph in 1822. He was able to make the first translation, showing that the Egyptian writing system was a combination of phonetic and ideographic signs. Here can we see when western logic and rationalism wasn't able to decipher the ancient Egypt's methods of writing. However, judge for your self in this journey thought the mystics of this forgotten civilization!    

Life is a matter of choice!

Barry Schwarts - "Paradox of Choice"

It is common to hear those who believe that the more options you have, better are the chances of making the right decision. However, there's no need of being an expert to understand that the more options you are exposed to, the more complex becomes the issue of choosing. Another important issue in this discussion is the understanding of the expectations, which the subject creates within the mind with the influence of the stimuli from the material world.
The human being live in a world that is very uncertain and that contain abundant amounts  of information. It seems impossible for any person to pay attention to all the information we received at once. This is an obvious reason of why we are selective. Since we take a choice, no matter what, always will become a paradox. It's a matter of "what if", and this question requires reflection from diverse perspectives. Nevertheless, selectivity requires the division of information into two states; quantitative information and qualitative information. The first one it's all that we suspect have the potential of knowing, while the latter is the information we accept as subtle for us. Probably known as knowledge. The point is, that when you are uncertain about a choice or at least don't have any idea of what you expect to find before you know you options, the paradox of choice will become more difficult to handle, in the other hand there could be problems with expectations. It may be like Socrates answers when a young citizen asks him advice if he should or not get married; "Do whatever you want, you will regret it anyhow"                     
  

http://free-university-in-internet.blogspot.com/