Category: Thoughts

Posted on

The Spectrum of Feeling: When Nuance Becomes Diagnosis

We are, each of us, a constellation of feeling. Joy intermingles with grief, hope dances with fear—a vibrant, swirling complexity that defines the human experience. Yet, something within our systems – both cultural and clinical – often seeks to categorize, to name, to diagnose. And when nuance is flattened, when the full spectrum of feeling is funneled into pre-defined boxes, we risk losing something vital: the very essence of what it means to be human.

The Erosion of Individuality

Consider sadness. It’s a universal response to loss, disappointment, or simply the weight of existence. But what happens when sadness lingers? When it doesn’t resolve? Suddenly, it becomes a symptom. A potential indicator of *something more*. The subtle shifts in perception, the quiet moments of introspection – these become data points in a diagnostic framework.

  • Cultural Influence: Our society often frames emotional distress as a problem to be *solved*, rather than a signal to be understood.
  • The Pressure to Perform: Expectations around productivity and happiness can invalidate authentic emotional expression.
  • The Danger of Normalization: Constantly hearing about mental health conditions can unintentionally pathologize common experiences.

The Diagnostic Lens

The act of diagnosis inherently simplifies. It seeks patterns, identifying clusters of behaviors and feelings that align with established criteria. While this can be invaluable for directing individuals to needed support, it also carries the potential to obscure the *why* behind the feeling. Is the anxiety a response to a legitimate threat? Is the depression a manifestation of unresolved trauma? Or is it, simply, a profound sense of being?

The problem isn’t diagnosis itself; it’s the assumption that a label can encapsulate a uniquely personal journey.

Beyond the Label

There’s a powerful movement advocating for a more compassionate, contextual approach to mental wellbeing. It’s about moving *beyond* the label to explore the underlying factors—the relationships, the experiences, the core beliefs—that shape our emotional landscape.

  • Self-Exploration: Prioritizing introspection and journaling to understand emotional triggers and patterns.
  • Mindfulness Practices: Cultivating awareness of thoughts and feelings without judgment.
  • Connecting with Community: Sharing experiences and finding validation from supportive relationships.
  • Reclaiming the Narrative: Refusing to be defined solely by a diagnostic label.

Ultimately, embracing the full spectrum of human feeling—the joy *and* the sorrow, the hope *and* the fear—is an act of radical self-acceptance. It’s about honoring the complexity of our inner world, even when—especially when—it defies easy categorization.

Let us strive to create a world where vulnerability is celebrated, and the language of the heart is understood, not pathologized.

Posted on

The Currency of Connection: Rethinking Value in an Era of Distance

We’re increasingly understanding the intrinsic worth of human interaction. Not as a transactional exchange, but as a vital resource.

The Rise of Digital Affection Services

The digital landscape has subtly shifted. It isn’t solely about entertainment or information anymore; it’s about feeling seen, heard, and validated. This need fueled the emergence of services offering explicitly affection-based interactions.

  • Virtual Companionship: Paid services offering conversation, emotional support, and a sense of connection.
  • Paid Friendship: Platforms facilitating relationships built on mutual appreciation and shared interests, with financial compensation for the effort.
  • Personalized Audio Messages: Individuals offering recordings of encouragement, celebration, or even simple acknowledgments for a fee.

Ethical Considerations & The Human Spectrum

This rise presents significant questions. Is offering affection a viable professional endeavor? Where does genuine connection end and performance begin?

  1. Authenticity: Can paid affection ever truly be authentic?
  2. Power Dynamics: The inherent imbalance between the provider and recipient demands careful consideration.
  3. Vulnerability: The emotional investment required from both parties poses risks.

Perhaps the most crucial aspect is recognizing the spectrum of human need. We all crave connection. If paid services provide solace, validation, or a bridge to rebuilding social skills, is that inherently problematic?

Beyond the Transaction: Reclaiming Human Value

This isn’t simply about the emergence of a new marketplace. It’s a reflection of a deeper societal shift – a longing for something genuine in an increasingly digital world.

Ultimately, the most profound value lies not in what’s paid for, but in the freely offered gestures of kindness, empathy, and understanding that weave the fabric of a supportive community. Let’s nurture those, too.

Posted on

The Illusion of Limits: How Maya Reveals Our Self-Made Boundaries

The concept of Maya, the cosmic illusion, isn’t about a grand deception. It’s a gentle unveiling: a persistent whisper revealing the boundaries we believe define us are largely constructs of our own minds. If all is illusion, then all limitations within that illusion are, fundamentally, self-imposed.

Understanding Maya

Maya isn’t a malevolent force, but a veil – obscuring the underlying reality of interconnectedness and infinite potential. It’s the framework within which we experience duality: self vs. other, success vs. failure, limitation vs. abundance. Within this framework, we assign meaning, create narratives, and subsequently, build walls.

The Self-Imposed Walls

Consider these common manifestations of self-imposed limitation:

  • Fear of Failure: A belief that failure equates to worthlessness.
    This prevents exploration and growth.
  • Limiting Beliefs: Deep-seated convictions about what’s possible for us – often inherited or learned early in life.
    “I’m not creative enough.” “I can’t achieve that.”
  • Perfectionism: A relentless pursuit of flawlessness, paralyzing action and fostering self-criticism.
  • Comparison: Measuring our worth against others’ perceived successes, creating a constant feeling of inadequacy.

These aren’t external forces holding us back; they’re internal agreements—contracts we’re signed unknowingly, limiting our potential.

Recognizing the Illusion

The first step towards liberation is *awareness*. Begin by questioning your assumptions:

  1. Identify Your Limitations: What are the perceived boundaries holding you back?
  2. Trace Their Origin: Where did these beliefs originate? Were they truly yours to begin with?
  3. Challenge Their Validity: What evidence *supports* these limitations? What evidence contradicts them?
  4. Reframe Your Perspective: How can you view the situation from a different angle?

Practice mindfulness. Observe your thoughts without judgment. Notice the stories you tell yourself – are they true, or simply interpretations?

Empowerment Through Dissolution

Recognizing the illusory nature of limitations isn’t about denying reality; it’s about reclaiming your power. It’s about understanding that you have the agency to dismantle the walls you’ve built.

  • Embrace Imperfection: Perfection is an illusion. Progress lies in consistent effort, not flawless execution.
  • Cultivate Self-Compassion: Treat yourself with the same kindness and understanding you would offer a friend.
  • Focus on Growth: Shift your attention from outcomes to the process of learning and evolving.
  • Take Inspired Action: Small steps, guided by intuition, can create significant shifts.

As you begin to perceive the illusion, the self-imposed limitations dissolve, revealing a boundless expanse of potential. It’s a continuous practice, a gentle remembering of your inherent freedom. Maya isn’t a prison; it’s a stage—and you are the playwright.

Posted on

The Illusion of Limits: Releasing Self-Imposed Boundaries

The concept of Maya, the cosmic illusion, has always resonated deeply within me. It’s not about denying reality; it’s about recognizing the layers of perception that color it. We exist within a framework that appears to be fixed – a world of choices, limitations, and consequences. But what if that framework is, at its core, malleable? What if the very boundaries we perceive are constructs of our own minds?

My own journey began with a persistent feeling of being held back, a sense that potential was stifled. I chased external validation, striving for goals that felt prescribed rather than truly desired. It was a frustrating dance, an endless pursuit of something just beyond reach. Then, the veil began to thin.

Think of Neo’s leap of faith in The Matrix. He initially believed in the concrete reality presented to him – the physical world, the rules, the limitations. But through questioning and introspection, he realized the world was a simulation, a construct of code. His ‘limitations’—his inability to fly, his perceived weakness—dissolved as he understood the nature of his reality.

It’s a powerful analogy. We, too, exist within a Matrix of sorts – the Matrix of our beliefs, our fears, and our conditioning. The ‘physics’ of our lives are dictated by the mental code we’re running. Our minds are not merely passive recipients of information; they are active creators of experience.

Even the freedom to choose feels paradoxical within this framework. It seems empowering, yet is the choice itself another element of the illusion? Perhaps. But even if it is, the experience of choosing – of actively shaping our narrative – remains potent. The act of choosing, even within a constructed reality, sparks evolution. When we consciously select a new thought, a new action, we subtly reprogram the mental code.

Realizing that self-imposed limitations are, well, self-imposed, is a profoundly liberating experience. It’s like waking from a dream, though the dream doesn’t disappear; we simply gain the awareness that we’re dreaming. The feeling of confinement loosens, replaced by a sense of spaciousness. Suddenly, the ‘impossibles’ become possibilities to be explored.

So, how do we actively dismantle these mental constructs? It’s a continuous practice, a constant return to awareness. Here are a few threads that have served me:

  • Meditation: Daily practice allows for observation of thought patterns without judgment. It’s a space to witness the illusionary nature of thoughts as they arise and pass.
  • Self-Reflection: Journaling, mindful questioning, and honest introspection. Asking, ‘Where did this belief originate? Is it truly mine?’
  • Creative Expression: Painting, writing, music—any form of creative output can bypass the rational mind and tap into a deeper, more fluid sense of self.
  • Exposure to New Perspectives: Engaging with diverse viewpoints, philosophies, and cultures broadens understanding and challenges pre-conceived notions.

It’s not about denying responsibility or disregarding consequences. It’s about recognizing that our response to circumstances is what truly shapes our reality. The world will present us with challenges, but our perception of those challenges—our belief in our ability to navigate them—is entirely within our control.

I invite you to pause, to question the boundaries you perceive. What limitations do you believe to be absolute? Where did those beliefs originate? What would be possible if you dared to entertain the possibility that they are not as fixed as they seem?

Embracing the fluidity of potential—acknowledging that the universe is not a rigid structure but a field of infinite possibilities—can lead to a richer, more liberated existence. Dare to awaken from the dream, not to escape reality, but to truly live it.

Posted on

A Token-Fee Approach for AI’s Use of Copyrighted Texts

Back in high school, I attended a seminar on overseas undergraduate education options. The speaker explained that if you simply ask a university for all its materials, your request is likely to be met with silence or delays. However, if you include a token amount—say, $5—with your request for select materials, you’re much more likely to receive a positive response. That small fee acknowledges the inherent work behind those materials and makes clear your genuine intent to learn.

I believe this principle can be effectively applied to AI’s approach to copyrighted texts. As it stands, AI systems are trained on vast amounts of content, including copyrighted works, without a direct economic exchange that respects the value of those texts. Imagine if AI developers adopted a policy akin to the university scenario: for each work ingested, they would include a token fee (for example, the publisher’s non-discounted sale price). This fee would serve as a respectful acknowledgment of the creator’s or publisher’s effort, under the understanding that the usage is analogous to human consumption—carefully moderated to avoid excessive verbatim reproduction, much like TV shows that only use brief spots from commercial cinema.

Such an arrangement would not only compensate the publishers fairly but also reassure them that each instance of use is part of a larger, value-adding ecosystem. It’s a controlled and respectful model that treats AI’s consumption of content like a licensed, single-sale transaction rather than an exploitation of intellectual property.

I call for stakeholders in AI development and content publishing to consider a token-fee model for training on copyrighted texts. This framework—much like the university analogy—could provide a balanced means of advancing technology while honoring and financially supporting the creative works that fuel it, ensuring that this isn’t exploited as a free-for-all but is managed in a manner akin to personal, respectful consumption.

Posted on

Should I profess my love?

If a person is clearly available and has not explicitly excluded you as a potential suitor, then conventional wisdom suggests, of course! The worst answer you can get for asking is, “No”, and as such you’d be no worse off than having not asked. That is simply not the case in many situations, because one is obviously not hitting on a stranger when professing one’s love – and as such risks jeopardising their existing relationship with this person.

So, well, “No”, and possibly they then immaturely go off and tell everyone that you hit on them (adding in whatever to make you sound creepy) and to avoid you. In any event, there’s a more evolved reason than rejection, shaming and embarrassment to keep one’s feelings to oneself.

It’s about not burdening another person to carry the weight of your feelings for them just so you can get it off your chest; when there are clear indicators that this person would not, for whatever reason, be interested, able or willing to reciprocate. If you know it would not change a thing except the satisfaction of having vented, but with the possibility of losing the proverbial bird in hand.

Posted on

Good vs. Evil

To understand morality, a baseline must be established. Humans in their natural state are neither good nor evil, but that doesn’t mean that “regular humans” wouldn’t perceive some of those neutral actions as ‘evil’. For example, a toddler in kindergarten who has not been taught manners will take toys from another child without asking, as this is the way of the wild. People would interpret the action of “stealing” the toy as evil, but that is just because they have already been conditioned by society. The alpha-wolf gets to eat first because it is stronger. It is capable of taking the food from the weaker wolves. Toddlers are, in a way, animals. If left to their own devices without intervention from authority figures, toddlers will eventually form a hierarchy of sorts, the strongest child having all the toys and food it wants. On another hand, primates kept in captivity have shown signs of humanity after being surrounded by “properly conditioned”, normal humans. Wolves are not evil for asserting dominance based on strength, nor can unconditioned humans be considered so. Upbringing is the conditioning humans go through. During the upbringing, basic moral grounds are set. The conscience is brought about, and children are taught fundamental differences between right and wrong. Studies have shown that the conscience and all moral thought is cemented before the age of five. If a child is not taught the fundamental differences between right and wrong during that time, they will be generally considered evil by society.

How, then, can one truly tell what is good and just? Steve Taylor, Ph.D. defines it as “‘a lack of self-centeredness. It means the ability to empathize with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put their needs before your own. It means, if necessary, sacrificing your own wellbeing for the sake of others’. It means benevolence, altruism and selflessness, and self-sacrifice towards a greater cause – all qualities which stem from a sense of empathy. It means being able to see beyond the superficial difference of race, gender, or nationality and relate to a common human essence beneath them.” (Taylor) Continuing on Dr. Taylor’s train of thought, the character known as the Doctor from the TV series Doctor Who recently said, “hate is always foolish, and love is always wise.” (Moffat)

Taylor, Steve. “The Real Meaning of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.” 2013. Psychology Today.

Posted on

Does God Exist?

Does God exist? As long as the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent overlord has existed, the human race has asked the question: “Does God exist?” It can be argued that this is the oldest question in the universe. However, I disagree. I think the oldest question in the universe (or at the very least, the first question that any being would ask as soon as they are capable of thinking) is “why?” This question can be found at the root of every science, philosophy, art, and religion. It is the explanation for the modern interpretation of God. In The City of the Shadow Realm – a novella I wrote – an ethereal character states, Religion is a construct of the human mind that was designed to help them cope with their fast-growing intelligence. Thousands of years ago, when humans were beginning their climb in the scale of knowledge, they started to ask too many questions to which they were unable to acquire answers for. They invented religion to explain away phenomenon they couldn’t grasp. (Bajaj, 2016)

As I stated, the “God” many religions have come to accept does not exist. It was and is an explanation to something beyond limited human understanding. The Greeks were one of the first recorded civilizations to practice religion. They believed that Zeus was responsible for thunderstorms, and Poseidon caused tsunamis. They invoked the name of Ares when going to war, and blamed Aphrodite for love. For every phenomenon they did not understand – every time they asked “why?” to an unanswerable question – there was a God to explain it. This, in my opinion, was nothing more than a fallacy they told themselves, because human nature cannot handle a question without an answer. I would not go so far as to say that there is nothing beyond death, and I still believe there is some form of transcendent energy that controls the universe. However, I do not think there is a corporeal, sentient, or even conscious God as depicted in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. I believe God is energy, a primordial spiritual power that exists beyond time and space. God is a law of nature, and is nature itself. God exists to be called upon by the beings of the universe. In The Secret by Rhonda Byrne, the Law of Attraction is elaborated upon, described as energy in the universe. Byrne states that “Your power is in your thoughts, so stay awake. In other words, remember to remember.” (Byrne, 2006)

To paraphrase: our thoughts create reality. We can imagine our lives the way we want them to be, and it will happen. Is this not how God is commonly thought of? People go to places like churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and shrines to pray: asking their God for the things they want and need. In my opinion, there is God in all of us. Every being that has ever lived has had God inside them. This is because God is thought, and thought is God. People do not need to go anywhere or pray to any specific being to ask of the energy we call God. However, one should not ask for anything. If you ask for something, it means two things: you do not have what you are asking for, and you are not showing your gratefulness for what you have.

When you want to attract something into your life, make sure your actions don’t contradict your desires. Think about what you have asked for, and make sure that your actions are mirroring what you expect to receive, and that they’re not contradicting what you‘ve asked for. Act as if you are receiving it. Do exactly what you would do if you were receiving it today, and take actions in your life to reflect that powerful expectation. Make room to receive your desires, and as you do, you are sending out that powerful signal of expectation. (Byrne, 2006)

So, am I an athiest because I don’t believe in a God? Or am I a thiest because I believe in some manner of higher power? It is not as simple as that; I would define myself as an agnostic non-deistic thiest. That is to say, I believe in a God (I am a thiest), I do not believe that God is a deity (non-deistic), but I’m not one hundred percent sure of my beliefs, and I accept that fact I could be wrong (agnostic). To conclude: I believe in a God, but not in the traditional sense.

Works Cited
Bajaj, Satraj Singh. The City of the Shadow Realm. 0.4. Vol. 1. Toronto, 2016.
Brietbart, Peter. Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic. 2009.
Byrne, Rhonda. The Secret. Ed. Rhonda Byrne. Beyond Words Publishing, 2006.

Posted on

Doing the Minimum

It’s disappointing when doing the minimum one needs to do to get paid, and reliance on the insurance industry to pick up the slack when one fails to do even that, becomes normal. But it’s worse when, rather than showing the moral courage and owning up to it, one uses lies, rudeness and offences to cover up one’s incompetencies.

Doctors need to have skills greater than the sum of the books they’ve read. Even a simple computer program can look up diagnoses and prescribe medication per established protocol by following a flowchart; and AI can probably do better than most consulting doctors. I came across an elderly person who lost the use of his legs because five doctors all came up with the same wrong diagnosis. It seems that either their need to respect each other’s professional opinions exceeded the need to correctly diagnose the patient’s health or they were all equally incompetent and looking up the same book.

Lawyers take on more and more business while actually doing less and less work, most of which is delegated to law clerks who in turn do the same, due to the safety net of making the client pay for insurance, so if anything goes wrong in a transaction, including due to their incompetency, they are not only safe, but actually get paid by insurance for more of their billable hours for filing the claim for the client to get reimbursed.

Banks are similar. They actually do not check the signatures on cheques under $1,500 due to the volume of cheques. If they do wrongly pay out a cheque, and provided the client notices, they have 30 days to recall the funds they incorrectly paid out (if it was to another bank), failing which there’s insurance to reimburse the client.

Insurance brokers make a killing on fear mongering, like there isn’t enough of it already. First pay premiums to cover the various risks, then not file a claim in the event of a loss, so as not to risk being dropped by the underwriter for filing the claim. Because being dropped by the underwriter would end the recurring revenue stream for doing pretty much nothing after first raking in the client.

“Professional” is a word that gets thrown around a lot in almost every context. Everyone considers themselves a “professional” in the sense that they are highly skilled at their craft and conduct themselves in a commensurate and ethical manner. To me that word simply means a person who charges money (as opposed to amateur) for whatever they have managed to make a go of in their lives.

I could go on and on – from people offering to help (for a fee, of course) to so-called “professionals” and businesses, everyone seems to be in a race against time to amass as much money as possible while doing the bare minimum possible.

Posted on

Is Knowledge Detrimental?

When people ask the question “can knowledge be detrimental”, I always think about how ironic that is. If knowledge really is detrimental, then even the knowledge of that is detrimental. It isn’t as simple as that, however. There is a saying: “ignorance is bliss”, and to an extent, that is true. For example, if someone is bad at keeping secrets, then they shouldn’t know something of a sensitive nature. The secret-keeper will feel burdened by the secret, and the secret-giver will be hurt if the secret is revealed. The secret might be for the benefit of a third party, who will also be hurt if the secret is revealed.

In the popular anime/manga series Attack on Titan, humanity lives within a walled city surrounded by man-eating giants known as Titans. The residents of the wall have been living there for a mere century, but believe that they have been there for much longer. Furthermore, they believe themselves to be the last of humanity and completely isolated. They don’t know, however, that they are merely on an island off the coast of Marley, a country who they (the island of Eldia) lost a war to 100 years ago. The king of Eldia modified the memories of the Eldians and marooned them on the island, completely isolating them from those who would seek to harm them. The king obviously thought that the knowledge of a world beyond the walls would be detrimental to the people of Eldia, so he shrouded his citizens in blissful ignorance.

Another example would be the series of novels written by Jeanne DuPrau; specifically, The City of Ember. Ember is a city located deep underground the Earth, hidden away and populated by people who were raised not knowing there is a world beyond the cave in which they dwell. The City of Ember was created by the Government as a contingency plan for human survival, in the event that the impending nuclear war would wipe out the rest of the population. The first generation of Emberites were instructed to raise their children to know nothing of the world above, so that they would not try to surface from their safe underground dwelling prematurely. Once again, the government officers in charge of the Ember project decided that knowledge would indeed be detrimental.

However, in both of these examples, there was a flaw in the plan. In Attack on Titan, the Marleyans sent undercover soldiers to destroy the walls of the city and let in the man-eating Titans. The Eldians were blindsided and massacred, not prepared for an attack and unaware of what to do. If they had known about Marley, they’d have been able to expect an attack and prepared. In The City of Ember, the time capsule (containing instructions on how to exit Ember and knowledge of the world above) set to automatically open well before the Ember supply stores ran out, was misplaced and not found for hundreds of years later. The lack of knowledge put the entire population of Ember at risk. The city was on the brink of electrical failure (which would plunge them into absolute, deadening darkness) and their food supply war running low. It was a fluke that the protagonists found the capsule and led the city out of the long-past-due-to-fail Ember.

In conclusion, knowledge can be detrimental, but one must consider the implications of ignorance too, which can be equally harmful.