One Day Joseph, A Masai Warrior, Who Was Walking Along One Of These Hot, Dirty African Roads, Met Someone

When am I ready?

We work very hard for things we want and for others that we don't. But it's about all right. However, mostly our efforts turn out to be fruitless. Why is this? Why isn't my book published yet? Why am I not married?

Most often we question the methods and the degree of our commitment but other times simply accept failure. None of this and at the same time all of this is right. How can that be?

Firstly, we can never work too hard. There's always a bit more we could do. Yes, even when we feel we've done our best. It is constantly possible to push a little harder, to get somewhat better. And there are times, when our work needs polishing. It's extremely hard to admit, when what we think we've worked for with all our might, cries out for being corrected. It's truly damn difficult to say, that it isn't that good after all.

Secondly, we easily get obsessed with a wide range of variety of things, from what we ought to keep ourselves far. And then it's inevitable, that we lay down our weapons and armours, and whisper lowly: I give up. Then we become free to do what can work for us.

But no matter what we do and how we do it. Sometimes we are destined to achieve success at certain fields, still, we struggle and yet get nowhere. That's because we might not be quite ready. The Oracle tells Neo in the Matrix: Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but it looks like you're waiting for something. And sometimes, very rarely, it looks like we're all waiting for something, just don't know what. We think we'll know when we see it. But it's not something we can see or something that's basically external. No. Just like in Neo's case, we've got to start believing. Faith is the last barrier, that separates us from entering the promise land.

major choices in life in a nutshell

Beliefs

"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs" sings Jon Foreman. This is a great advice to us, modern-day people. We let ourselves be shaken by nearly everything: science, new religions, even the opinions that aren't identical to ours. Nowadays people are lacking confidence and mostly confidence in what they believe. In what WE believe.

On the contrary, when we don't believe in something, we mostly have absolutely no idea what that thing's about. We don't read the literature of the religions we don't agree with, so this means we are very far away from being given the right to disagree, since we aren't informed. When someone denies evolution, or science, they don't have a physics, chemistry or biology degree, they just are willingly ignorant.

At the end of the day, we don't have strong faith or strong doubt, but even when we do, it's based on nothing. But why is that? It's because we can't listen to all debates, read every book, perform each experiments to support our beliefs or doubts. In fact it would be impossible, since humanity hasn't yet answered every questions, we are too young a specie to know it all. This means that every faith and doubt will be open for discussion for an exceedingly long time.

Opinions and beliefs make us, people, so diverse and it's wonderful. However, it's quite trivial that in the end only one faith will prevail and on a distant-enough day we will know who was right because  every single belief system, no matter if they say it differently, excludes every other. You can try and model religions as different paths to the same place but it doesn't work. They're contradicting each other. If one's true, the other is inevitably false.

I know there have been countless flame wars generated by religious differences. You might even bring up the crusades as a fine example, however, the crusades are so much opposed to how christianity is defined that the "holy crusades" were acts of the least christian roots. Just saying... But where am I going with this? Fighting over who's right or who's wrong is folly. Think about it, truth will prevail. Forcing your ideals on others will never produce new believers, only averse souls. I, for one, am a believer of Jesus Christ. And yes, I'm convinced that I'm right about what I have faith in. I stongly think that everyone should believe in what I do, STILL, my onlytool to achieve this is live my life by the principles I believe in. You have the choice to disagree. I'm sad if you do but it's completely up to you.

Cheers :)

some fly free as birds

Neat compositions

What is Brendan Eich?

Nearly everyone has heard of how Brendan Eich, Mozilla's former CEO, stepped down because of a scandal around his contribution to an organization that sought to ban gay marriage. Conservatives and liberals have been engaging in heated debates on this matter and this post isn't to determine who's right or who's wrong. What it is meant to discover is the phenomenon itself.

The interpretations I've encountered are:

#1: Opposing liberals meant that Eich made a strategically wrong step. Admitting to failure, he decided to step down.

#2: His personal standpoint went against the very mission of Mozilla, which was not creating profit but spreading openness, freedom and such with a diverse community.

These arguments. however, don't directly lead to the actual consequences. The reasons why these are misleading, inaccurate arguments are:

#1: Even though in politics and everyday life we all try to bring our own views to victory, a liberal couldn't oppose Eich. A liberal answer to his donation would have been nothing but total respect. That is because such a reply would be in favor of diversity, although all-inclusive includes the ones, who don't agree even with inclusiveness. There are many forms of liberalism but none of them would scold Eich's contribution to that organization. In summary, he couldn't oppose liberalism in a way that would lead liberalism away.

#2: Brendan Eich made his contribution as an independent individual, back in 2008. Now he spoke against everything that could oppose the gay society. He realized that holding up such views would definitely infringe Mozilla's mission. Still, his altered position promoted diversity. One could say that he is responsible for the collectivity of his actions but he actually faced this past act of his, trying to make it fit to the company's mission. Opposing Eich would actually mean failing this mission because at least toward him they close their imaginary gates and would exclude him.

What I'm trying to articulate is that there cannot be any idealistic reason to support his stepping down. On what grounds do many support it then?

(Before making my thesis, I want to note, once more that I'm not saying Eich was right or wrong when donating to the anti-gay organization, neither the same about his stepping down. Now back to the point...)

What this case tells us is that though people sympathize with liberalism or communitarianism or anything else, most of them don't actually belong to them. Eich's opposition (the kind, which doesn't only have a different view but instead is actively against him/agrees with his resignation) doesn't consist of liberals or any other group of idealists, instead of people, who may sympathize with them but they themselves are essentially different.

Carl Schmitt wrote that the main function of politics is to distinguish between friend and enemy. Schmitt wasn't a liberal--more importantly he wasn't an idealist but a realist.

Eich's opposition makes an enemy out of him. They called on Mozilla users to uninstall their browser and stop using their products. They took up a fight against him with smart methods, ones, which were enough to make the continuation of his being a CEO impossible. 

It's not a question whether or not Eich was right but whether or not he is a friend to us. Not a liberal community opposed him but rather a realist one that, at best, only serves a liberal community. They can sympathize with liberals but they can't be them.

The reason why I thought this whole matter important to see is that it's not the age of idealism any more. Of course I can't deal an absolute in regards of this because the political sphere is very mixed and while there are realists in it, we can just as easily name another huge group of idealists. My ultimate point is that this presently emerging trend is, contrary to popular statements, not liberalism, or any other form of idealism but realism instead, where one can't rely on rights or morals, only on the inclinations of those, possessing power.

An impressive study by my favourite artist :)

I made that this afternoon :)

There’s no happy ending with me.

Packing

Fate now come, Dis App was ready in his dispositions and intentions. But a journey, he understood, depends on many things.

Sustenance and garments. Some money for emergencies and some for leisure.

And even the common, directionless man will tell you that when fate calls you cannot rely on the promise of happy returns. But Dis App, being strong and resolute, did not also anticipate failure.

Should he never return, there would still be a future for him. In sweet Far Away.

What should he bring into his life, finally starting? Probably not cheap furniture or utensils. But not even things so far his greatest treasures. Fate can’t offer less than the gray past. In fact it can only bring him to possess more.

But, Dis App thought, maybe a watch beside the essentials. Yes, it was a birthday present. And it is perhaps of no brand and the gilding is fake but the leather smells genuine. It is the most elegant thing of the so far. 

And maybe he doesn’t have to absolutely kill himself.