Various thoughts and reflection

Note: This writing is part of the Coins That Shatter the Mirror cluster, reposted from my earlier archives as part of the BetweenSparks project. Read the full cluster on Wattpad.

When I am out and about in my daily life, I have thoughts... Sometimes they are profound enough to be stored into the notes on my phone.  Usually though, they sit there so long I do not remember the entire reflection that made those thoughts... So here I will post random quotes from my phone and talk about them.

"Reality is painted by perspective. Use more color"

As innately subjective creatures (who behave existentially pragmatic), we are limited to observing reality and the universe through narrow lens of perception. By constantly looking for new perspectives we can either 1. make our understanding of reality larger and/or 2. see reality from many different ways. Either/or - the idea stands that trying to gain more perspective will allow someone to understand more about reality.  No matter how small and trivial, or large and significant the reality can be expanded.

"He who has the wisdom to make standards is wise enough not to do it" - from the book Wayism

While I want to agree with this quote, I want to disagree.  Indeed we should realize standards are made by reflection of societal norms and our personal perceived standards of what is 'good' 'wrong' or 'neutral' (in various combinations). But instead of not making standards at all... we should do the critical-divergent process of constantly reevaluating our perceived standards. Indeed, our standards may never be the most wise, or the best AND with that knowledge we should never assume them to be the best.  Yet, in the moment there could be wise standards, but as far as life long standards, that is where I agree it is most wise to not have have them.  Like any other thought, standards should be seen as always developing and evolving with other standards that come into your mind.

"Existentialism: You haven't lived until you think about death all the time" -Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein (Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes)

Although this quote seems to have a humorous tone, I completely agree, lol. I already wrote a post about how death and dying = philosophy.  Basically though... How can you truly appreciate the life you have if you do not understand the lives that are no longer here? This gives us Westerns a bad impression of death; we mourn for a few days and try to get over the death.  In Eastern tradition the death is more of a celebration; some wear bracelets to mourn for years.  I would even argue this effects our diverse metaphysical contemplation of East v. West - the way we look at death.  For our cultures, death is death, the end - it's over.  For most Easterners death is the beginning (as their religious philosophy denotes).  Today, if we look at how our language has evolved, you can see a huge difference between languages like English and Mandarin - the biggest being the nouns and verbs.  English has far more nouns; nouns symbolize static and solid articles of expression.  Mandarin has more verbs; verbs are the opposite; they express action.  From the philosophy of death, in diverse practices and philosophies, developed diverse languages that modern man uses from their ancient applications.  Hard argument to make? Yes, but, just look at the differences of existentialism practices between West and Eastern philosophers.  One will see how the former argues causes and effect and the latter argues more of a synchronicity.

"How intelligent can you be if you cannot defend yourself in basic hand to hand combat?"

 This came to me talking to my best friend who practices martial arts.  My thoughts are shallow here: an evolutionary standard for survival has been based on 'the fittest' - the strongest, the best adapters - for the longest part of our anthropology. How can we (as individuals) today suggest we have a higher intelligence than our ancestors, but could be thrown back in time and be probably killed by them without much effort.  Maybe you could argue strength... But, some of the worlds best martial artist do no more weight lifting than cardio and calisthenics, or simply just meditate. I guess, this entire idea is shallow - why do we need to fight? Well, while you train in any art there is discipline, but with martial arts the discipline is physical.  I would also definitely argue, in general of the human psyche, that bodily kinetic intelligence is real - muscle memory and whatnot.  Definitely a part of intelligence we over look (even take for granted) as individuals, if we do not balance activity between the body and mind.


"Moral questions are the in the fabric of what is human nature"

Self explanatory I hope. If there is a human "nature" we obviously have morals which infringe on whether or not that nature is good or bad - as all the philosophers in history attempt to resolve.  So, by default I assume that if you worry about ethics and morality (studying the subject) you will be able to understand human nature far better than perhaps even psychology.

Diversity-factors and Persona; Personality Effectors (cont. Intellecto Persona)

This piece was originally written in 2013. It is part of my archive project, now being revisited and edited in 2025 under my Wattpad series Between Sparks. You can read the refined version here: [https://www.wattpad.com/BetweenSparks].

Ideas of how diversity-based issues effect an individual person, on an objective scale of being human... Haunts me.  While my position of being a nonanthropism* helps me become the objectivist in theory crafting, for practicality a feministic (multidisciplinary perspective) approach is at the same time necessary and deceiving. A non-biased position which applies to everyone, constantly? Is that possible? Or are many anticipated and biased positions. which applies to everyone, in the majority, more reasonable to champion? These questions are the holistic assistance here.

We are discussing human nature and the most basic level of diversion between humans; diversity.  What makes you different from me? Can I know that by knowing a few factors about you, or do I have to know everything? Are there factors which can at least map out some of the 'everything' accurately? Which diversity-factors separate people the most? These question are the atomistic assistance here.

So here, is where we will discuss diversity-based factors and how they effect individual personality development and self actualization (individuation). Perhaps in extension dictate something about 'social cognition' - how we cognate (process+perceive) one another.

Let's begin with identifying diversity-factors and then applying them to characteristics of personality:

Diversity factors: Natural personality/intelligence, age, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status/class, body image/fitness, educational background, academic/social achievement, family of origin/make up, and language. 

Now they all effect our daily lives, but which stand out as being something we can directly start effecting in society? Well, being an American I see - race, sexual preference, gender (sex), age, religion and socioeconomic status/class - as the factors which seem to be of the biggest issue.  So as a partial nationalist (I only care to help and not necessarily identity with America) I will focus on these 6.

To note: I had previously accredited thoughts to the BIG 8 of diversity... Well, from inspiration comes new ideas - and these are them!

A very popular personality theory today is the BIG 5 (no, they are not related in context of BIG) and has changed the way in which mind theorist and researchers develop.  The biggest benefit which came from this theory is the variation-clause which suggest personality is not a yes-or-no thing. For example: you are not either introvert nor extrovert, but both depending on the situation and circumstance.  So, when a researcher wants to know how introvert or extrovert you are, they look at a scale from 1 to 100 of "extraversion" AND low extraversion is someone who is more likely prone to be 'introverted' and high extraversion is one who is more likely an 'extravert'.  So what's the difference between saying they are either of the two and not? Well that doesn't tell me HOW introvert or extravert someone is, without a scale of variation.  So when someone is at 45 - 55 (on the extraversion scale) they have a balanced extraversion, making them an ambivert (luckily there is a phrase for it, usually not for balanced traits). So again, why does a scale of personality TRAIT beat out a duality of personality TRAITS? Let's think about the difference between two identified introverted people; one is at 14 on the scale and the other 35.  This 21 point variation can tell us a great amount about these two individuals; the first is probably a lot more shy than the second (although they are both shy), and the second person is more likely to probably act extravert in any given environment.  

Variation-clauses allows us to compare individuals with others more easily, which also allows us to psychoanalysis individuals quicker.  (Think about how much better you get to know somebody when they are hanging with their closest friends).  By comparison of one persons behavior compared to others, are able to see which traits effect sociability and/or personality more often. 

While the following expressions of diversity-factors and personality have been crafted for argumentation of how to better understand human psyches and persona... To call them personality-factors or traits is stretching it, because they are more so personality-effectors. As they effect personality when they are reflected on and are not necessarily natural attitudes (since we are not born with predispositions of diversity, but given them in our respective societies). As opposed to the BIG 5 where those characteristics can be argued to be innate, these cannot be.  No one is born realizing age or sex or race is a factor.... We are instructed to believe so in our life times by others in our nurturing.  
So here are my personality-effectors (working name):

Agetisism - a variational response to ageism; variations existing between recognizing age related factors of self in societal situations - and - responses from society of how/what age effects and prevents or allows. Low degree of variation is related to awareness of societal/cultural normatives being based on negative experience and feelings of acceptance - a low opinion of self's age and/or a low opinion other people's ages.  A high degree comes from awareness of age-based benefits; activating the privileges certain ages of society gives and grants that certain age-group. Although one may be a well-practiced agetist, they can still face large amounts of diversity... based on their age and reflections of what age can provide (just because they understand the situation, does not make them capable of manipulating said situation).  However the higher degree of agetisism will allow more acceptance which (not always, but) allows an individual to become better able to perform with ageist norms

Pretty much it is the same definition for racetisim and sextisism, but with respects to racism and sexism rather than ageism. Terms for religion, sexual preference and socioeconomic status/class are in the process of being considered... Perhaps a few comments can help me with terms? However, unlike agetisism, the factors of how an individual may dislike homosexuals is more often a religious [knowledge] issue than anything else - although we can find there are privileges of being homosexual, there may be (in reality) more privileges to not being homosexual.  This does not insist on the notion "homosexuality is wrong," on the contrary this insist on the fact MOST think it is wrong... Therefore the above example of agetisism needs modifications in order to align with such a stipulation of societal acceptance with non-heterosexual sexual preference. As far as religion and socioeconomic status/class- they may fit in the definition, but the terms are still on the drawing board.  More on these terms development in the future.

So, we realize the world is divided by ideas of diversity, and yet individuals are able to overcome AND/OR get deluded into those diversity-based realities, which effects their personality (and their ability to self actualize).

How do we become a better person? By realizing how everyone wants to become a better person, but is then prevented by diversity-factors.  That prevention can be lifted with reflection on what exactly it is it is preventing... People from realizing we are one of the same species of animal, and should strive to survive collectively. Better person, better people, better society, better world.

*Nonanthropism - the position humans are not intrinsically unique/special

                            - the belief people are all innately the same machine and/or spiritual vessel

Kierkegaard Introduces a Reflection of Faith And God

Note: This writing is part of the Coins That Shatter the Mirror cluster, reposted from my earlier archives as part of the BetweenSparks project. Read the full cluster on Wattpad.

Kierkegaard feels that when man practices faith he is in danger of temptation. When faith becomes influenced by desires it appears that man is actually tempting themselves with the idea of God. Since God has already given us everything and more in which we should be happy with, to have faith in more than God existing is arrogant thinking. Thus God never tempts us, rather we tempt ourselves with thinking God is tempting us.

“... You perhaps beg and adjure him, to fulfill your wish; but if he continued to deny you, you would cease to beg him, you would say: If now I influenced him by my prayers to do what he does not regard as right... I should have lost him and my confidence in him … “ Here S.K simply suggests; when one desires something from God (no matter how good natured or selfish), when the constant faith in the desire does not get satisfied, we are quick to blame or reject God. “God why do you not do this for me? How can you truly exist if you cannot provide for what I desperately need?” This is man tempting himself with the idea of God.

God has already provided mankind with an universe, a world and the mind to conquer it all. Why must one rely on faith that God will provide for us anymore than he has? The only faith one should have is the faith God exist and is good. To be a person of God is to be good and this requires no faith he will provide for you, but rather to have faith in God and to do good you will be rewarded for your good deeds. By 'tempting' God one actually tempts themselves and creates false notions of what God is and does. These temptations lead to the separation of man from God.

___________________
The God discussed here is the Judea-God. Today there are many who have faith in God and do not realize it is always more of self-relationship than YOU and GOD relationship - that which requires the actual faith - God exist no matter your 'faith' right? So your faith in God is easy, the faith in yourself to be with God (the relationship) is not, that's the most difficult thing anyone can do in their life. We are talking about God, after all.  

The 'Selling of God' has led to the 'Destruction of God' in American culture; atheism and nonreligious numbers are steadily rising. Rejecting the idea of "God" does no more harm than the person who does not understand their personal relationship. Those who sell God are those who give you ultimatums with God: "Heaven or Hell" - "salvation" - "repentance" - "love" ONLY IF you have faith in God (and the guy persuading you to buy-buy-buy). LEARN LEARN LEARN LEARN LEARN  Buying God corrupts the real relationship one should have with God; with yourself. If you want to buy your love with God, start small businesses designed to help the community with work and respectable pay - it's not about your yearly intake, it's about the next 10 years of the children in the families you are supporting to be well enough to be with God.  How can God love anybody if everyone is dead; our ocean, earth, air... destroyed by the fire that is development and no research. This planet is here for us, we ruin our home collectively and claim our souls are saved while we are aware of this and do not struggle to help... It's going to be work to be with God.  If humanity was one person, heaven is never an option at this point. Remembering we were all born with original 'sin' and the burden with the 'infinite want to know.' And noting Jesus and other prophets were charitable and against GREED, rich people who took advantage of those with less means of succeed. There is NO BIG BUSINESS in collective harmony on our planet; green systems/energies, biosafe products, recycle-sciences, and much more. The purchase of an item which in some way does not benefit humanity, is a sin, it is greedy - selfish.

This relationship is a largely foundational part of an individual's life. It places you on a metaphysical plateau to understand reality.  If you are God, I am God, but there is also a God to talk about. In a conversation, when you separate yourself from me in conscientiousness, avoids more than God, but to avoid how I perceive God. God is unique to me in perception as it is to you.  We need God in different areas of our life.  The reason people are able to Sell God is usually by the most immediate support of families and communities of merchandisers. Part of religious practice is a communal sensation.  We require others to know we are truly living in light of God. Well - that's not as easy as just ritually chilling out with those people. Again, clearly, one's relationship with God is complex and does not stop short at JUST having the faith.
_______________________________
Questioning the nature of God is how one becomes to be with and understand God.

That statement is a "God-statement;" replace the word God with any reasonable word - bread, wine, pastries, stars, atoms, neurons, cells, physics, philosophy, etc. You get something interesting.  Now 'be with' should be acceptable enough to not mean "a part of" but "constantly influenced by."  An inheritance can be made... That everything is God then? Well, yeah, but also you (myself, everyone) and a divine-creator.  The trinity could be extended to hold the father (God), the mother (earth) and the son (us). Part of an unified theory in multidisciplinary theology will include discussion of "god-statements."
___________________________________
Want to find God quick and easy?

Sorry you can't, lol, but! I can tell you how I have gotten to this point of faith in my relationship with God (and myself).  The outlandish idea of multidisciplinary theology; approaching studies of religious practices and religious history, with particular concerns of God, with various paradigmatic theories and research to support hypothesis. This underdeveloped field takes into consideration the social sciences (perhaps harder sciences) as being able to explain and settle disputes in topics of theology.

I have no idea really if any of that is recognizably true! However the conceptual idea is fun to play with... But, maybe looking at sciences for finding God is too much to start? Maybe something more human-oriented, and not necessarily psychological  and spiritual. To start a broadening of theological and religious study find interest in various world religions. Begin anywhere, modern; nothing older than 200 years. Begin with the most popular and try to explore those which are not so popular. Popularity itself not being distinguishable by interest but by statistics of population. All religions of modern practice are vital to see how others interpret God and for those who do not necessarily interpret God, but NATURE and SELF should be emphasized as being equally valid in alignment of the trinity extension; you are learning about God in light of many perspectives, whether the ancient text talks about people, nature or God there is potential to learn about the nature of God (yourself and others). If God loves you and me and humanity, humanity and us must work to be with God and not merely accept that we love God back is enough to prove your love.

My religious views:  I am an ignostic religious naturalist which embodies this mentality: one must present a coherent expression of God before we may discuss the validity of said "God" - depending on which will shape my responses to you as an agnostic, atheist, theist, pantheist, deist, etc. - while recognizing humanity has innate religious attitudes of group-orientation and thinking - in order to share communication of God on terms which are universal and not biased.

This is Nicholas G. Lukowiak here at the Chapel of Religious Naturalism - bringing you God at your computer desk and cell phone with the knowledge "We Do Want To Love One Another," and that want comes from the discussion of community.

God Bless The World.

Intellecto-Persona

This piece was originally written in 2013. It is part of my archive project, now being revisited and edited in 2025 under my Wattpad series Between Sparks. You can read the refined version here: [https://www.wattpad.com/BetweenSparks].

___________________

___________________

The picture is revealing two hemisphere of the mind - left and right, cliche at this point.

What is notable is these activities of the brain do exist and function in those hemispheres - parts of the brain like the hippocampus being the "catalyst" for long-term memory - these parts/sections exist in these hemispheres yes...

AND I do not want to pretend I know the specific locations of brain chemistry and/or neuroscience for that matter... That is the practice of neurology at its finest and perhaps my weakest discipline of cognitive studies, but the idea stands... Two hemispheres hold a seemingly patterned nature which, for the instance, that those types of thinking exist related to positioned side of brain -or- basically, the moment you are logical it's on the left side of the brain. 

This hemispheric inference is false.

Since psychology is the individual awareness and study of individuals and/or groups.... hemispheric analogizing is too minimalistic and simplistic to the point of devaluing the complexities of active thinking in momentary conversation... Which **fucks shit up when trying to exchange ideas with others. AS WELL in normative science studies.

To add: The brain activating is not something to consider is unitary, or functioning strictly to specific parts of the brain at single moments... At most, there is one specific part/section of the brain which activates first to activate many more.  However, most likely, several parts/sections activate at once to start the activation process... our cognition... 


Essentially, that is how our looks in a millisecond of neural activity - the left or right hemisphere will NEVER be active without the other hemisphere at the same time.  Even if, one side of the brain did/does 'light' up more than the other, the other side is still lighting up. 

** Check out: http://isthismindmaterial.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-communication-fucks-shit-up.html
__________
/
/                This is your brain on 'wrdos'
/__________

Now it's clear I do not necessarily believe knowledge of the hemisphere matters... But perhaps HOLDS these thinking types or overall recognizable intelligent-based mechanisms.

My overall contemplation of intellecto-persona, and how it relates to the 1st image is kind of interesting actually - depending on certain features of the individual types of thinking... can demonstrate personality as well as intelligence.
 
For an easy map start anywhere where you feel most relate-able to (1 of the 12 types of thinking) . Then the next most relate-able, and so on. Now, let's say this list is your intellecto-persona. What your strengths are (your first few picked) will be supported by the middle and weaker thinking types. So what ever (let's say first 3) your strongest types are, will be the pinnacle of your thinking-style or intellecto-persona BUT it does not stop there, as although the rest of the types are still in you, and support your primary types. Overall your 'mind-brain' relationship will be based off of how this system of connected thinking types work with one another: how strong, how weakly...

A good example would be autism. Think about Ramon from Rainman the film. He could be considered highly skilled in 'logical thought' 'detail analysis' and 'long term memory' but would be absolutely awful with 'conscious awareness' 'abstract thought' and 'wholistic' --- While autism is extreme, the different is only the fact while his "absolutely awful" abilities are weak, they allow whatever support for the highly skilled as well as give more brain capacity to perform those skills better....

 ____________________

The above analogy involving Rainman is a rough-rough idea of mine, but here is a more visual explanation:

For this blog post sakes I will continue using the original picture but now in the framework of this little image (which I have no good name for -or- know the name of).

Remember, avoid the hemispheres!

Now, the original image have 12 listed thinking types, I think there may be 8 - 12 (but ignoring my the number of types and more focus on how they apply to one another). So, for the purpose of this post go ahead and label those types of thinking from 1 - 9 (combine conscious and unconscious, short and long term, AND abstract with gestalt ... for new graphs sakes) and start the numbering from the top left - down and right - down...

This graph depicts a blank intellecto-persona. All of the types of thought are connected to one another. All types are attached with a line, lets call them 'connective modules' or Cmods for short.

These Cmods are critical. They will depict the individual's intellecto-persona. Their strengths, weaknesses, and the in between. Their personal potential for a certain intelligent task is dependent on the certain strengths and weaknesses of their respective Cmod network - their intellecto-persona.

I asked you to number the first picture and relate it to this graph. Now here would be a rough demonstration of a random intellecto-persona:



This would be more of the visual conception in which somebody's Cmods may look like. (It's rough and kind of rushed.) What do the colors mean? Again, just to display the general idea of my thoughts here:

Red - Strongest
Orange - Strong
Yellow - Less Strong
Green - Less Weak
Blue - Weak
Purple - Weakest
*Blacks Cmods matter, just didn't color them all in, not TOO necessary, because this is a rough representation anyways.

You can go ahead and suggest for yourself, what type of person I mapped out in the above - as far as doing that here, will prove VERY LENGTHY. But, feel free to not have wasted your time of putting numbers to types of thinking or intelligent-based mechanisms!

(Note: I am ignoring naming the specific Cmods for length purposes, and well, these thoughts are still under going development.)
_________________
The practicality of this (proposed/undeveloped) theory is beyond benefiticial for mapping of individual consciousness, but for how we educate.

This post is pretty long as is, so in brevity:

Let's say you are a logical, long-term and fast input thinker (as being the three main Cmods)... We some how figured this out through brain scans, testing, whatever.

But, you hate math, you hate history, you just dislike academics all together for some reason. Well with this knowledge of your intellecto-persona, you or your educator, can figure out how to teach you anything you do want to learn.  Like abstract art or writing or some other creative skill.

This theory is benefiticial for, and designed in light of, education.  As it develops so will it's overall practicality.

Even if the theory never makes it past a lengthy journal, the idea of a multidimensional interpretations of consciousness will still be the future of brain mapping for pursuits of education as well as overall understanding of diversity in thinking of a natural order.