Random Thread

Hello :)

I’m very glad you chose to share some random thoughts in this thread. I’m sure that your writings can’t wait to be let out, and when some are posted I will be happy to read through it. <3

Why does the ability to write exist?

It's a question I had recently. For some reason, in a certain period of time, writing had emerged as another form of communication aside from verbal communication and enables the writer to deliver information to the people non-verbally. It has proven to be a useful way to communicate ideas and helps to clarify one's thoughts and ideas. I found this quote by a fiction author, Joan Dideon, which articulates this point. She wrote, "I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means. What I want and what I fear."

Noticeably, there are few elements required for writing: an alphabet; language, a writing tool such as a pencil, and material that a writer can use to write on such as paper.

Writing became apparent first by the invention of an alphabet system. Out of all living beings, humankind are the only ones who has this ability. Which might be caused by this clear 'urge' to create something. Or out of necessity too, writing enables you to share information to long distances. Not only by land, it can also transcends time. You likely have read works of some authors even after they have passed away, yet their works still remained existent and accessible to the public including yourself. Especially now with the help of the internet, you can access multitudes of information in the form of text copied or pictured from different kinds of texts from different periods of history.
Writing is almost like the closest thing to a time-machine. But the only destination it offers is the future. Sure, a writer can't use this medium to travel to the future in flesh, but he can still 'time travel' his/her ideas, depending on the circumstances.

Farther back into the past, writing or literacy in general wasn't as prevalent as it is nowadays. There was often this select group of higher classes or nobility who had this privilege. Some would even have to go to a certain person somewhere who is known to be able to write; in order to write letters, arrange contacts or do business exchanges with other groups of people. Today, with the prevalence of literacy, this ability is often taken for granted. Many people can access a huge amount of information. The fact that you, reader, can read this and understand English is a big advantage you have in the world today. So, enjoy the most out of it.(:

Shoot-out to whoever they are from amongst the Phoenicians Sumerians and the Ancient Egyptians that are known to be the inventors of the very first alphabet systems, which in turn commenced this revolutionary legacy of writing that lasts to this current day.

(A Sumerian cuneiform)

Mental Disorders: Are they actual illnesses or just some aberrations from the norm?

Are mental disorders a real issue for an individual in itself or an issue that simply conflicts with a society's social context? Or perhaps, both?
This is actually something I had thought of years ago. But it got back to me recently.

According to the WHO, "a mental disorder is characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour."
Another slightly different definition by the DSM-5 says, "a mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or development processes underlying mental functioning."
Both of these definitions have the same premise: that mental disorders are a disturbance in one's mental faculties. Which means that it's considered to be a disturbance a group of individuals have, compared to others that don't. These 'problems' they have isn't found in other individuals, meaning that, by definition; they are mentally healthy unlike their fellow individuals. Another aspect you notice from people with the disorder, is that others often do not comprehend their actions or find their behaviour unacceptable. In turn, the majority seems to be the one who defines what's proper what's not.
A few symptoms that I found in almost every major mental disorder is "Avoidance of social situations", "Withdrawal or isolation" and one that says it's a disorder if "An individual is having an issue interacting with others in their environment(at work, school, family...etc) This can be the action taken of the said individuals due to their own disturbance of their disorder(s).

The point I have is, "What dictates those symptoms as part of a 'disorder'?" More often than not, the disorder can make one feel / have a sense of isolation OR it causes them to withdraw from the people. The people, the society in general, consider a certain amount of symptoms as a disorder. As I would say, these 'dysfunctions' are abnormal to the society that one individual lives in.
What if, most of the individuals in a society had one of these disorders?
I think it's possible if that were to ever happen, it will no longer be characterized as a 'disorder.'

I once thought of a parallel world where no-one has hair. Except for like 1% of the population. Naturally the people living in that world would consider it be an abnormal phenomenon.
Okay, let's try that again but by using mental features, not physical ones. Here are some of the major symptoms of depression:
• Depressed Mood.
• Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in most or all activities
• Significant weight loss (or poor appetite) or weight gain.
• Insomnia or hypersomnia.
• Psychomotor retardation.
• Fatigue or loss of energy.
• Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt
• Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness
Plus, these symptoms have to be present for at least 2-4 weeks. If in another kind of world, where three of these symptoms are present. It's very common to lose interest easily and the sort of thing our world deems as 'Fatigue' or 'Tiredness' is relatively normal too. Indecisiveness which in that world wouldn't be known as 'being indecisive' the first place is widespread too. Maybe people who are highly active and energetic in that world will often be diagnosed with an issue that would be called "Productivity" too, and it must be treated. I don't know.[Okay, that's far-fetched.(':]

It might be difficult to imagine a world like that since we live in a world that requires being productive and active to progress. But yes, this is more of a philosophical question I had, defining mental disorders isn't solely dependent in being deviant from what's normal in a social context. It still affects individuals from the inside too. Although, no doubt, the society and external factors can influence prevalence of mental disorders. Depending on how much the administrators of a society care about the fulfilment and the well-being of their citizens, I guess.

If there are probably some psychologists reading this now, they might go like: "What in the world have I just read?" (':

After all, in reality, there are individuals who are really suffering and get better with some treatment. The DSM also briefly refers to the matter as well, which may be the best way conclude this.

(>"Neither deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual." Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8161428/ )

But, I am just picky I guess and still don't know exactly how 'dysfunctions' are identified.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6182728/

I found this research that entails the  differences and life-satisfaction in happiness in both non-religious and non-religious group. What stands out is that the proposed survey is given to over 300000 individuals and it's done in a global scale. So you'd noticeably see the diversity when you see the countries' list they added to this article of the research.

(Warning: Potential existential crisis ahead...)

The Impermanence of Everything(?)

Is everything really temporary? Once I actually began looking for what can be eternal the other day, I couldn't really find anything that is, affirmatively, eternal. Well, philosophically, that can get pretty complicated. You'd find that it's a long-debated topic. Platonic philosophy proposes some sort of the existence of eternal, immutable forms or ideas that exist independently of the physical world, for instance. But doesn't that require consciousness of living beings to recognise their existence or do they somehow just exist by themselves?
In the other hand, I had heard other philosophies such as Empiricism say that all observable phenomena are subject to change and impermanence, and that nothing in the physical world can be considered truly eternal. But then any kind change requires time? Or maybe time is possibly eternal?(In a more scientific perspective actually, there's often this opinion that 'Time' is more of an illusion). There are a myriad of opinions about this when search about it further. And you can find reasonable arguments in both sides.


So...
"Is the universe eternal?"

It reminds me of the theory of an eternal universe, it was very popular some time ago I think. In a nutshell, it this theory propses that the universe has always existed; having no beginning nor an end. While this theory has  There's a theory today that supports it called the "Big Bounce" which says that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initiate another Big Bang, and that will keep happening over and over again. So in this way, the universe would last forever.
There are a few arguments against this theory, such as the science today indicates that the universe has a limited amount of hydrogen, stars eventually die and the formation of new stars will cease. Resulting in the end to the "Cold Death" or the "Big Freeze" of the universe. This is a large topic you can research, it's for now one of the most famous ending scenarios for the universe.
After all, I see that these are all theories and not all the segments/details of these two theories can be proven by the scientific method(emphasis on the experimental part of the scientific method), as the base of these conclusions seem to be reliant on speculations.

So...
"Is time eternal?"

Putting aside the idea that time is an illusion or an invented concept to help with organising daily life activities and whatnot, let's suppose it is really existent, and look into two arguments that indicate whether it is eternal or not.
The first one says that if the universe did not have a beginnng, then the past consist in an infinite temporal sequence of events. You can see this one depends on the property of an eternal universe. If the universe is infinite, then so time is. As the time exists as the universe exits.
The second denies time being eternal, since if time is infinite/endless then the 'present' will never occur. And the reason for that is an 'infinite time' came before it. The 'present moment' you're living in would be non-existent.

So...
"Is matter eternal?"

There's a general ruling that says that matter can't be created nor destroyed. Indicating a beginning for all matter? For now, the thermodinamic law of physic indicate all matter, and energy too, eventually will become zero.
Also, an additional thought here, matter is tied with time. Without matter, time doesn't exist.

This next one is something I found today, perhaps the strangest one..

So...
"Is existence eternal?"
Since there's a high possibility that the universe will end then so existence will cease.
But 'existence' in itself?
Someone wrote this, "Existence exists, has always existed and will always exist. Existence cannot come from nothing and cannot become nothing. Time exists *within* existence [the universe]. Existence [the universe] exists out of time which means that existence is eternal."
(: You probably need to read that a couple of more times. I think this one is more complex than the rest. Because, yes, the property of being existent is seemingly always there. But an unanswered question still remains, does the 'existence' require matter? If it does, then it is finte.
Well, all of this might need a more thorough research...

Generally, anything that is observable by any of your senses has a seemingly temporary existence. Your own existence is impermanent too. While that might sound sad but it can actually be a motivator for you to make the most of what you can with whatever time time you have left.
[Speaking of making the most out of time, what am I doing here writing all of this?]

Two interesting aspects I thought of before researching this, one is maybe that knowing the meaning of "temporary" allows you to know in turn it's opposite, "eternal". Just like you wouldn't know good without the presence of evil. Second is that the fact that life is temporary might have led to the though of an eternal one. Like the idea of an after-life you find in many religions. I recall someone once saying that the idea of after-life was invented due to wishful thinking, that everyone will die and have the potential eternal life of bliss, unlike life in this world. Well, that can be a ancient, pleasant ideology made out of desperation. But there is an issue, how can the brain that is bound by nature and a potential evolution think of something as metaphysical as that? All beings have likely never experienced something that is really eternal so how can a thought like this one be present in the first place? Or maybe going by the analogy I provided in the first one about acknowledging the opposite of some quality can explain this... of the potentiality of knowing eternity by knowing what's temporary.

Apologies for any past occurrences with siblings on this account. I just recalled a time now with someone here and a conflict happened. But it should be alright now.

Me with my old notebooks if I kept writing rap lyrics like I used to, and making music: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-YAWbuWP4yc ( "Notepad" - NF )

(':

The weather here: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/8ClM6DSFzxY ("IT IS SO HOT" - Nyoomian)

"A Poem About Responsibility" by Charles Osgood:

There was a most important job that needed to be done,

And no reason not to do it, there was absolutely none.

But in vital matters such as this, the thing you have to ask

Is who exactly will it be who’ll carry out the task?

Anybody could have told you that everybody knew

That this was something somebody surely had to do.

Nobody was unwilling; anybody had the ability.

But nobody believed that it was their responsibility.

It seemed to be a job that anybody could have done,

If anybody thought he was supposed to be the one.

But since everybody recognised that anybody could,

Everybody took for granted that somebody would.

But nobody told anybody that we are aware of,

That he would be in charge of seeing it was taken care of.

And nobody took it on himself to actually follow through,

And do what everybody thought that somebody would do.

When what everybody needed did not get done at all,

Everybody complained that somebody dropped the ball.

Anybody then could see it was an awful crying shame,

And everybody looked around for somebody to blame.

Somebody ought to have done the job

And Everybody should have,

But in the end Nobody did

What Anybody could have.

____________________

Interesting piece here. I read this a while back and I just happened to find the original piece and its author. You might need to re-read this a couple of times to comprehend. Maybe view "Somebody", "Everybody", "Nobody" and "Anybody" as names for real individuals when you read it again next time.

"Волка ноги кормят." -Русская пословица 🐺 

"A wolf's legs feed him." -Russian proverb. It means, one should work to earn something. Just like a wolf would run('work') several kilometres in a day to look for food.