2. What is the Soul? (The return of Relativism)

Now this is a particularly hard topic and I am going to approach it this time with reference to Truth and the Soul. My investigation is going to focus on the process of distorted and manipulated truths from the outer interactions of the social ego (D) to the ego (C) to the "self" (B) to the witness-consciousness (A). Here I have a difficulty positioning my previous idea of the Soul and this will prove interesting. My main argument is that relativism exists in all dimensions of interaction within and outside of ourselves (as a composite identity of A, B, C and D). What then happens to the Truth and how can we regain it? My assertion is of a realist-rationalist approach of reflection and circumspection.

Before we embark on the processes, we must understand the various composite parts of our identity. Allow me to start with the witness-consciousness, which is known as the saksi-pratyaksa in Hindu philosophy. I have used the similar term because linguistically it makes a lot of sense to my understanding of it. However, I am not agreeing with the romantic notions of its origin. That much is out of my scope as a moral-realist.

Now what is the witness-consciousness, you may ask. Well, follow me with a little experiment and it will quickly be apparent. Tell yourself a definite truth statement. Next, tell yourself an untruth. That little voice which speaks out against your untruth is the witness-consciousness. Sometimes it speaks in the form of a tentative doubt-ridden pause in response to your untruth. The witness-consciousness is the part of you that knows all. It has witnessed all but is passive in a sense. It may "counsel" you in your deliberations but it is unable to affect your final decision. It is the "entity" to which we speak when we engage in self-justifying talk. But ultimately, we find that we cannot lie to our witness-consciousness. We may placate our "self" but we can never lie to our witness-consciousness.

This is the first level of story-telling in which we construct (or attempt to construct) before our witness-consciousness a more ideal image of ourselves.

When we engage in story-telling, we engage in self-justification of our actions and denial against the voice of our witness-consciousness. At the most basic level, story-telling is when we tell our witness-consciousness that we need what we want. Yes, it is oxymoronic for wants and needs are different in priority. But to be able to acquire what we want to better ourselves, we must need it. We must try to story-tell to our witness-consciousness that we need these things, not want them. So our acquisition of them are perfectly justifiable and then we can live with ourselves.

Our witness-consciousness is in essence truthful. In this quality, then lies the possibility for all truth. Indeed, our witness-consciousness acts as the source of radical doubt (Descartes: where the slightest suspicion of a doubt will be enough to make me reject any one of my beliefs.)

5. Positive Revenge: Bad Grace and a flash of optimism (Do we deserve happiness?)

Bad Grace occurs when we are acting good begrudgingly and are not doing it out of the goodness of our hearts. Hence the outcome may be moral but the origin is not. When we do something begrudgingly, it is born out of injustice and unfairness. Partly we may be expecting something in return as well (be it material or an act of gratitude). Hence its origins are calculative.

In order to achieve Positive Revenge in the moral sense, we are to give of ourselves without the occurrence of Bad Grace. Bad Grace limits the good that the agent will do and in turn also places a burden upon the person who has benefited from the act of good.

This is something which I am highly conscious of now and am highly critical of myself for my past incidences of Bad Grace. But today in a very mundane setting, I found myself with Bad Grace once more.

I allowed two children of two different families to take a seat before me in the line. Their parents did not say a word of thanks. And wonders of all wonders, one mother even jumped my queue in the end though she had clearly stated that her son would go after me earlier. And there I was thinking: Hey! How come these people did not even say a word of thanks? How come she jumped me in the queue?

Bad Grace? Yes! But I did not react upon it though I did feel like stating it out so that I could enlighten them of the fact but then thought against it. Still, I am troubled by my reaction. Will be back to write more after I deliberate on this.

Meanwhile, I had a flash of optimism which I must admit has been more rare than a blue moon for a long time now. As human beings, I understand that we are not entitled to happiness and this is only right. We may not even deserve it but then I suddenly realized that we can be deserving of it. And the way to work towards being deserving of happiness is obvious: to do our sincere best to be good and deserving human beings.

4. Positive Revenge and "The Heart of Darkness" (Joseph Conrad)

Through the novella, I came to confront "Positive Revenge" through the idea of Kurtz's brave and insane embrace of Death. Why Insane? Because it is against every biological imperative of survival that is programmed into our physical being. And this is our very natural reaction and aversion to death which later, I shall reveal to be but an anti-climatic and lackluster phenomenon.

Of Death, there are many kinds but the two of the gravest importance to me are of Physical Death (where we become null and inactive agents) and the Death of the Ego (symbolised as Kurtz when he willingly steps over the edge as opposed to the "Hesitant Foot" that Marlow presents. Indeed, Marlow still seeks to preserve himself, to still hope for benefits to himself and lacks the conviction.)

Conrad writes of the lackluster and anti-climatic struggle that we pit against Death.
Why is this the case? Because for all that we resist and run away from, death is pre-determined and indeed it is within our very nature itself to perish. In turn, in our escapism, we prioritize wrongly and place too much value on existence for its own sake. We drink at it as if it is a drug and forget that existence is nothing without deed and deed is nothing without death.

When our perishable Ego perishes, Legacy of deed is then all that is left. These are the forces that are set into motion by us and that which can exist into infinity. It is through our deed/s that we set our feet firm and renounce ourselves as "mere playthings of time". As shown through Kurtz's lover (which his death is almost continuous, never withdrawn from her by the passage of time), we should not be prone to forget, to get waylaid by obstacles and not prone to tire under the passage of time. True enough, our love for the good will ensure the execution of our deed/s and their persistence even after our deaths.

Of the phenomenon of Death, various factors come into play. First, I mention of "That which kills" and argue that from colorful and loud agents of death come great possibility for beautiful Positive Revenge.

The agent of Death can deliver its act as according to various reasons. It may be of chance. To which I stress the importance of actively seeking to enact Positive Revenge with every precious moment before the random executioner comes to rest on us its cleaver. That which kills can also come upon us out of carelessness and non-intention. Lastly, it may be of agenda. This is most often the case whereby the agent has knowledge of the consequences of its actions but still chooses the course of action nonetheless.

The second factor in the phenomenon of Death is the process by which the Ego comes to pass and becomes the deceased. The measure of a man is how he acts in Pain as opposed to Pleasure. Why is this so? This is because it is always easier to give of oneself and rise above oneself in a privileged position of pleasure (of satisfaction, adequacy and possible abundance) but only in pain, can we determine if the man is able to possess conviction and purpose, to rise above and beyond the innate drive for self-preservation. Will he persevere to make meaning of his existence and to leave a mark of infinity? Many great men have done so, Socrates, Jesus and Gandhi.

The last factor of the phenomenon of Death is the audience (immediate and extended). We come to consider the effects of the death of the Ego on the audience. How has Positive Revenge affected the audience? Sad to say, many of us remain trapped in our immediate human sphere of concerns and would not be able to learn value from the act of Positive Revenge if we do not consider of the loss of things (even people) that are of no apparent value to them. We do not consider of others in such a manner because we do not see the stark reality of us being a family of man and instead focus predominantly on our kin. Reflection and moral education is then brought about if there are spiritually mature individuals to make light of the Positive Revenge of the deceased. Through the colorful nature of the process of death, personal moral education and reflection can also be brought about.

18. Love: Romantic Love, How much and Why?

After settling the integration and redefinition of Romantic Love, I move on to explore new aspects of the topic. The first question that I wish to delve more into is "How much should we love?"

The unconditional nature of Romantic Love makes it seem as though we must forgo ourselves. The answer is yes and no. Total forgoing of ourselves would not be optimal as since by being unloving to ourselves, we in turn pose a burden on those who have to care for us. Thus we must care for ourselves in order to care for others effectively. As Grayling puts it, "We owe to our neighbors as much as we owe to ourselves." But the unconditional clause means that we still prioritize the other above ourselves as both the exalted and destitute as Levinas puts it.

The second question is "What do we stand to gain from Romantic Love?"

Physical Love grants us physical pleasure, egotistical pleasure (on being valued as a sexually attractive specimen) and the continuation of our genetic line. There is no growth of the individual in this sphere.

Spiritual Love then accords us more benefits as individuals and as a unit. Its unconditional nature teaches us to give of ourselves above self-interest. Thus we learn to move beyond our ego and identity and relate to others as equally important human beings.

Secondly, we also learn of the genuine and honesty by engaging and reciprocating in spontaneous and neutral action.

Thirdly, we acquire the skills of spiritual appreciation of another's Inner Beauty and we come to know what moral knowledge and action is and in turn what the Good is.

We are also not afraid to truly be who we are because we are accepted by our partners in their spiritual love for us.

All of these benefits enable us to achieve Spiritual Growth and derive True Gratification. We then move on to consider the losses form failed Romantic Love to better understand its benefits.

When others engage us with Physical Love but no or inadequate Spiritual Love, we feel hurt from being objectified and from not being accepted as a subject.

17. Love: Integration and re-definition of my understanding of Romantic Love

16 posts later and my thoughts on the topic have expanded much. Thus it is time to do a comprehensive integrative re-definition of my understanding of Romantic Love.

My current understanding of Romantic Love is the combination of Physical Love and Spiritual Love.

Physical Love is the initial stage of Love where human/sexual appreciation of our partner's physical beauty (sexual attractiveness) occurs. This type of love is exclusive in nature since it operates on a conditional "Best Fit" nature. The partner is appreciated and valued as a tool/object of means. Since the biological goal is fixed (namely continuation of the species), this form of love is limited as it is uni-directional, exists in a fixed form and on fixed points of engagement.

In the intermediate phase, Physical Love flows into Spiritual Love. At this point, both are of equal importance. Spiritual Love occurs when there is spiritual appreciation of our partner's inner beauty (moral knowledge and action). It is all-inclusive and unconditional in nature. Our partner is accepted and loved as an "other". There are no fixed directions or form or points of engagement. The point of origin and evolution emanates from a fixed point of being between the two partners' common point of being.

In the final/complete phase, Spiritual Love comes to dominate over Physical Love in importance where True Gratification occurs (both partners grow spiritually) and we are enabled to move towards grasping and practicing True Love through the experience of Romantic Love.

In this complete and final realization of Romantic Love, the partners engage each other in spontaneous and neutral action in full appreciative view of the fragility and finitude of their interaction. The partners love each others as subjects and recognize the possible trappings of ourselves as objects and in turn actively try to overcome such trappings. They then give birth to Love as a force which continues into infinity. Love is indeed all they ever need since it informs and determines its own existence.

To better put across my current understanding of Romantic Love, it is best at this time to state some of our common confusions for Romantic Love.

Confusion 1: Confusion of Methods occurs because Physical Love and human/sexual attraction are innate and do not need to be cultivated. Thus we often confuse and translate its methods to Spiritual Love. This in turn leads us to Confusion 2.

Confusion 2: Confusion of Loins occurs when Physical Love dominates over Spiritual Love. What then happens when we encounter another person who is a "Better Fit"? We then trade up if we base our actions on the falsely prioritized importance of sexual/reproductive goal.

Confusion 3: Confusion of Gratification occurs when others enter into our lives and fill up apparent gaps/voids, it is then easy to mistake that we are in Love as we experience the pleasure of Gratification since a want/need is fulfilled. This is very much similar to the case of Physical Love where a Fit occurs. This Gratification is only temporary and transactionary in nature.

The simple test would then to determine if we still would love the other if they do not fill up those gaps? If we do not, then we are not of the appropriate spiritual acumen and do not possess Spiritual Love for the other. The prevention would be to educate yourself so that you do not need others to fill gaps. You must educate yourself to only need the love of someone and not need anything from someone's Love.

16. Love: Multiplicity?

I move to consider the notion that we can be in romantic love with more than one person. Given the way my thoughts on the topic have grown, I find it necessary to once again define what Romantic Love is. Romantic Love is the combination of being in love with a partner's physical beauty (human/ sexual-reproductive level) and inner beauty (spiritual level).

I started off thinking that it is very easy and human o be in love with more than one person on the basis of physical beauty.

But yet again, it is possible and only right to be in love with every person on a spiritual level. This is if we possess the correct spiritual acumen, then it is only natural that we will be able to appreciate and love all.

So indeed this led me to realize that ironically that is on the human level of physical beauty that we keeps Romantic love as love for the few/one rather than love for the all since it is only natural on a reproductive basis that we want our physical partners exclusively to ourselves to better ensure the success of our offspring. Physical beauty also keeps romantic love an exclusive nature because of its "best fit" nature as opposed to spiritual love's "all fits" nature.

15. Love: Learning how to love Blind

What I wish to construct is an education of how to learn to love blind: past Physical Beauty. I understand Physical Beauty to be physical/sexual attractiveness.

The evolutionary idea of Physical Beauty can explain its importance because it gives clue to the physical health and probability of good genes of our partner. It is the product of good genes and cosmetic upkeep.

Why then would we not pursue Physical Beauty to the maximum? Why then would we not all blindly pursue the most physically beautiful specimen? I agree with Schopenhauer and argue that because it is not merely a case of maximum utility, rather we are programmed biologically to be attracted physically to others on basis of "a best fit" theory, whether its purposes are to counter our genetic flaws or better improve certain strengths. In that sense, Physical Beauty is very much in the eyes of the beholder. Some people are physically endowed so as to be able to "fit" many individuals, thus they are more attractive whereas on the other hand, others are meant to "fit" a more select population.

Physical Beauty however is often not indicative of Inner Beauty, as justified by the Socratean view. My understanding of Inner Beauty is the combination of Moral Knowledge and Moral Action (which is put into effect with determination).

There is then a clash of our reproductive needs with our spiritual needs, our primal love with our romantic love. Indeed, this is another flaw of romantic love whereby the initial engagement may be flawed. Because we are first engaged on a physical plain, we often allow that to mar and dominate our further aesthetic appreciation of the person's Inner Beauty. If we allow our loins to lead, then we may confuse Physical Beauty with Inner Beauty which is not necessarily true, our reproductive drive may invoke our imagination to fill in the then void knowledge of a person's Inner Beauty at early interaction and later counter-refute any discrepancies we should encounter.

I dare not say at this point which is more important since both have noble goals, one the continuation of the species and the other the fulfillment and growth of our spiritual self. As I have stated before, to enter a loving relationship is an unconditional and in turn binding pledge from one spiritual being to another, so to love truly means that one must bear the task and responsibility of integrating the two and create the perfect case scenario of the attraction of Physical Beauty and appreciation of Inner Beauty.


In order to love in an ascendant manner like Plato propounds in "The Symposium", the lower rungs of the ladder would be of Physical Beauty and the higher rungs would be of Inner Beauty. With reference to my previous posts, we find that spontaneous neutral love and de-objectification and re-humanization of our partners can only exist in the spiritual realm of love of our partner's Inner Beauty. In the realm of Physical Beauty, we only value and interact with each other based on qualifying attributes that we find in each other. Since this is based on qualifying attributes, Physical Beauty is in very essence conditional. With conditionality, we will never be able to see our partners in their full glory. Likewise, we would not be able to understand our subject-object dialectic. Our concern is how do we achieve this ascendant love.

First, we must have patience to outlast our loins and indeed endure the possible loss of our loins.

Secondly, we must act out the romantic engagement with appropriate aesthetic appreciation skills: fair-minded, impartial, cultured, knowledgeable, unbiased, balanced and truthful. (as put forth by Hume)

Does this answer the question of being in love with flaws of our partners? Yes! Because to possess appropriate aesthetic appreciation skills, we would be able to be fair-minded and accept. To be accept is to love.

Does this also mean that by appreciating, we judge? No! Appreciation is not the same as judging. Judging involves deciding between what is right or wrong from a fixed point of evaluation. Appreciation involves seeing clearly and acceptance.