between jumping constantly and standing at one place, would you like to sit and think for a while?

There's a conflict between society and rebel in that, one cannot exist in the existence of the other. I use "rebel" here, not just as an act against the government, but against the norms and rules in general (and in a more detailed sense, an act even against one's own belief system).
I believe most of people know why it's widely prohibited. The question is, why should we be, and why aren't we rebellious enough?
Now, I was going to list some answers to these two questions.. but it came out a little too prescriptive, which was against the intention of this post. so I leave this to the individual's judgement to find out how being rebellious might be helpful.
As for my own judgement, I said rebel could be an act against the belief system of the individual. what I meant was, even though I deeply believe that having integrity and not changing mind easily are good qualities (and there's no conflict here if it's clear enough), questioning one's beliefs and really questioning them is also an act of rebel which we are usually disinclined to do. For example, a theist, an atheist or even an agnostic, probably believe they are right in their own judgement about God, and all have some sort of explanation for their beliefs; or someone who's never done drugs, might think he knows well enough what the pitfalls of using drugs are and that's good enough reason not to try it. A rebel, on the other hand, doesn't make statements like this. To him, life is a lab and one should experiment and experience the opposing sides in order to get a result and a subsequent judgement.

Krishnamurti, believes in a more radical form of rebel, in which having beliefs is contradictory to being a rebel:


"... an intelligent mind is a mind which is not satisfied
with explanations, with conclusions; nor is it a mind that believes, because belief is again another form of conclusion. An  intelligent mind is an inquiring mind, a mind that is watching, learning, studying. Which means what? That there is intelligence only when there is no fear,  when you are willing to rebel, to go
against the whole social structure in order to find out what God is, or to discover the truth of anything."

It might be very difficult(if not impossible) not to have some sort of belief system, in that , we need an evaluating system to be able to interact with our environment. I guess his point is that, remaining flexible and open is a feature of the rebel.
But the question is, for most of us(since societies survive better than rebels), is it that our answers are satisfactory enough that we don't want to give them up, or is it that it's easier and safer for us to stick to them instead of periodically revising ourselves?

To lie, or not to lie

Over the past week I was mentally occupied by questions about different aspects of dishonesty. I first had a hypothesis that long-term dishonest behavior may cause memory decline, but since I couldn't find any data to support or to refute it, I left it at that.
While googling for the question above, I ran into another, rather interesting paper on neural activity associated with honest and dishonest decision making. The research was based on two hypotheses. According to one, honesty results from the active resistance of temptation, while the other one states that honesty results from the absence of temptation. The results of this research supported the second hypothesis, that honest people don't show any additional control-related activity when choosing to behave honestly. In contrast, individuals who behaved dishonestly exhibited increased activity in control-related regions of prefrontal cortex, both when choosing to behave dishonestly and on occasions when they refrained from dishonesty.
After discussing this last matter with a friend last night, we concluded that, even if one who engages in dishonest behavior habitually, once decides to behave honestly, his brain activity might not change radically, and in order to change that neural activity to an honest one, one needs to practice to be honest to change the synaptic behavior over time.
This was of my concern mainly because, I was born into a culture in which dishonesty, in the form of giving compliments is a value. and this makes, me, individually, a dishonest person by neural definitions. Now, I don't consider myself dishonest, but the fact that I actively resist the temptation of lying suggests that I am. So, is confessing that I'm a liar a starting point for changing my synaptic behavior?

Hypothetical happiness gadget!

From the second half of the last century, there has been a trend toward human perfectionism. There have been movements such as "Transhumanism" and emerging sciences such as "Cognitive Science". The goal of Transhumanism is to enhance human intellectual, physical, psychological capacities among other thing. In short, its goal is to transform man into superman. One goal of CogSci is to understand the mind and its processes, and answer questions such as, how does brain shape mind?what are the neural correlates of  mental processes? how can we model these processes?
Other sciences, and other movements are still on, but the focus on the inside is now more intense. We have learned a lot about our surroundings. But that's not the case I'm intending to discuss. A reason for the recent interest in the inner, mental life, is that we have understood, no matter how much we learn about the outside, and invent different tools and machines to do our work and facilitate our lives, we are not necessarily happier.
Now, Transhumanism can help us live a longer, healthier and a more improved life. Still, it doesn't guarantee our happiness. This is when CogSci comes in handy. It's not very unrealistic to imagine a day when we find the neural correlates of happiness in the brain and can become happy just by pushing a button(or even just by wanting it). A perfect body, longer life, higher IQ, and happiness altogether. Seems ideal!
Now, the question is..that even if we have the option to consciously make ourselves happy, would we be happy? There is a conflict between happiness and being aware of it, i.e. once you think about it, it disappears. Now, how can you consciously decide to be happy and be happy?
The other question is that, even if there isn't a conflict, knowing that the reason we are feeling happy is pushing a button or choosing an option, would we still feel happy, what I mean is that, could happiness arise simply out of neural activity?

implicature or presupposition?

Doesn't "You are smart" presuppsose the speaker's smartness?

55. SOFT BONES

Who is filled with harmony is like a newborn.
Wasps and snakes will not bite him;
Hawks and tigers will not claw him.

His bones are soft yet his grasp is sure,
For his flesh is supple;
His mind is innocent yet his body is virile,
For his vigour is plentiful;
His song is long-lasting yet his voice is sweet,
For his grace is perfect.

But knowing harmony creates abstraction,
And following abstraction creates ritual.
Exceeding nature creates calamity,
And controlling nature creates violence.