Little Thing 279 : The 9-dots Puzzle

 

One thing I wanted to remember from Elastic was the 9-dots puzzle.

In this puzzle, you are asked to connect these 9 dots in 4 straight lines or less without lifting the pen. 

Sounds easy, right? Try it. 

-

Apparently, most normal people can't do it impromptu. 

But the success rate for solving the puzzle is when:

1. we supply with 2 extra dots
2. or, we draw another spacious box around the 9-dots (by drawing a bigger box, our brain can think "within the bigger box"
3. see the end of the post for some of the answers

The interesting part is the hypothesis:

people are so dominated by the perception of a square that they do not 'see' the possibility of extending lines outside the square formed by the dots (Scheerer, 1963).

Our brain is so used to the geometric border that it prohibits us from seeing the solution because it will require "violating that 9-dots border". We see the 9 dots as a border even though no rule says we can't exceed the dots to solve the puzzle. But because our brain is used to the same pattern same rule, it is wired to interpret everything in the world within what has worked before. Our brain is wired to connect to the "almost similar" experience to solve a problem so everything can be solved efficiently, but this will also become a problem when we can't see beyond the pattern that we are so used to. 

It dawned on me, sure, because I'm stuck in the infinite cycle of problems that I can't seem to get out of. When everything I do seems to be failing, I feel like I'm at my lowest, and the anxiety hits, you know, the cycle repeats. I told my sister that it is really hard to be positive all the time especially when the cycle feels a bit too long. So, I need to try to break the cycle, even if it scares the hell out of me, I need to dismantle the whole puzzle, remove everything from my history tab, and start back from scratch. Try to think it through from a fresher point of view, maybe I will see something that can work.  

I know, most people keep everything in while figuring it out but I've always been interested in the process itself, so this is one of the sections in my life where I'm figuring out how on earth to deal with a mid-life crisis while being in one. I'm not going to wait until the end of the road and compile it in a book where I tell the world that "I was in a pit but I came out as a winner". The figuring-out part is my story.

And I also kept this from the book:

Sometimes the most powerful revelation one can have is that circumstances have changed. That the rules you are accustomed to no longer apply. That the successful tactics may be tactics that would have been rejected under the old rules. That can be liberating. It can spur you to question your assumptions, help you rise above your fixed paradigms, and restructure your thinking. - Elastic

-

Here are some of the answers:

Book : The Insects and The Question About The Basic

The Strange Order of Things by Antonio Damasio.

There is this one section in About Life and Its Regulation: From the Life of Social Insects (pg 22):

These 2% of insects mainly ants, bees, wasps, and termites are capable of remarkable social behaviors. They are biologically created to have a strict inflexible routine for the purpose of their group's survival in nature. 

They divide labor intelligently within the group to deal with the problems of finding energy sources, transform them into products useful for their lives, and manage the flow of those products. They do so to the point of changing the numbers of workers assigned to specific jobs depending on the energy sources available. In their colonies, they build nests that constitute remarkable urban architectural projects and provide efficient shelter, traffic patterns, and even systems of ventilation and waste removal, not to mention a security guard for the queen.

These creatures acquired their complex social behaviors from their biology, not from Montessori schools or Ivy League colleges. But in spite of having come by these astounding abilities as early as 100 million years ago, ants and bees, individually or as colonies, do not grieve for the loss of their mates when they disappear and do not ask about their place in the universe. They do not inquire about their origin, let alone their destiny. Their seemingly responsible, socially successful behavior is not guided by a sense of responsibility, to themselves or to others, or by a corpus of philosophical reflections on the condition of being an insect. It is guided by the gravitational pull of their life regulation needs as it acts on their nervous systems and produces certain repertoires of behavior selected over numerous evolving generations, under the control of their fine-tuned genomes.

Members of a colony do not think as much as they act, by which I mean that upon registering a particular need - theirs, or the group's, or the queen's - they do not ponder alternatives for how to fulfill such a need in any way comparable to ours. They simply fulfill it. Their repertoire of actions is limited, and in many instances, it is confined to one option. The general schema of their elaborate sociality does resemble that of human cultures, but it is a fixed scheme. 

It is remarkable how these insects can do these huge things for their society without 'akal', how they are biologically wired to know what they should do from the beginning. And I began to question, what we actually subconsciously know that is already rooted deep within us - the things that we are actually biologically created for if we stop to think. 

All creatures are created intentionally, they just exist and seemingly know what to do, even for such a small living thing like bacteria. Somehow they know what to do to survive and procreate. So, how to know the main purpose of our lives if we scratch everything and go back to the basics?

Humans, we ponder, we think, we feel, we ask, we question, we improvise, we invent, we make art. It seems grand.

But we also conquer, kill, and destroy.

-

Books - The Courage To Be Disliked and Adler's Theory on Separation of Tasks

 

I'm continuing back this book: The Courage to be Disliked by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. I bought this book last year and have been trying to finish this up (but it is taking too long).

The issue with this book is how it is written, the penyampaian of these philosophies - it is boring, well not as boring as reading a textbook, but boring enough. In this book, the philosopher is having a conversation with a youth, explaining the philosophical theories by Alfred Adler. No stories, just a really long conversation so it felt like ideas were being preached to me instead of reading a story. Why pretend like it is a story when the writers didn't want to explore the story properly? 

Why take this road?

-

Opinion: I rather have not the teacher-student dynamic in a story because I don't feel comfortable with the idea of one person who feels like they are all-knowing and another is lost and seems 'empty'. 

I feel like choosing the teacher-student dynamic in fiction is a bit lazy. Just to tell/explain your ideas/thoughts as a writer, you write about an all-knowing character and then this character feeds all the ideas to this other character who seems like needed your input. Instead of exploring the other ways to present these ideas. Every human with 'akal' is capable of constructing their own wisdom if they really make use of it well, so why would you deny that part. Why feed everything in one go, what's the thrill in that? Where is the human complexity in the characters? 

I love it when ideas are being presented most subtly or in stories within stories. I love when I have to do my own digging just to understand the idea, or when I have to think and discuss to know the possibilities of the ideas. 

Any fiction, so this also goes into movies - not just books. 

So for me, a story that explains everything *especially by its character is just not challenging enough. I'll get bored and even sometimes even offended when the character explains just everything. 

But, that's just on my part. That is why I think this book is boring because it is just a conversation between the philosopher and the youth. But this might be my unpopular opinion, 3 million other people who bought this book might not agree with me :F

-

On a second note, maybe the reason why I'm taking too long is because I need to think as these new ideas being presented in every chapter (especially when I haven't decided to agree or disagree with an idea). Here's a sample: 

Separation of Tasks-

1. Everyone has their own tasks, so your task is to fulfill yours
2. Do not intrude on other people's tasks

In this chapter, the philosopher said that in general, all interpersonal relationship troubles are caused by intruding on other people's tasks or having one's own tasks intruded on. The philosopher gave an example of a child and a parent, where a child, has the responsibility to do his/her own homework, and as a parent, his/her responsibility is to provide all the assistance one possibly can and to remind the child of the task. That's it.

Not to force, beg, manipulate, or negotiate with the child, even though as a parent, we know better. Forcing the child and ignoring the child's intention will only lead to an intense reaction like anger or frustration. This goes on towards adulthood, for example when we want to choose our own path in the future, or regarding family responsibilities, or anything lah. Especially with family, we feel like we have the right to give our unsolicited advice kan.

Adler said that it is better if you just focus on your tasks. Let everyone else focus on theirs - and don't intervene. You know what you need to do, and that is what's important. Macamana orang lain nak deal with their own tasks will be entirely up to them (their way, their pace, their decision) - even if you feel like you know better. Keep your right distance - macam kaonashi in Spirited Away, ada when needed kat sebelah.

So, I've been thinking about whether this idea works in every situation or not, and whether it is valid. In a way, it's true lah, every family disagreement comes when one crosses their boundaries and starts to mess with other people's things. Wait, what if, this one person doesn't fulfill their responsibility and it affects the others? Arguments are bound to happen, kan. And to what extent? How about in a relationship, there are 2 people, and each with their own tasks - when to interfere?

Ok, I haven't decided, yet.

-

Last night, I dreamed about going to the library and it then rained hard.

Super-nerd dream. 

Note: Selamat Berpuasa !

Little Things 265 : The Freedom of Choice

 

Last week's question: 

is it possible that people these days are more anxious because we have the freedom of choice?

 

Here are the writings I found on the topic:

1) The Dizziness of Freedom, by Soren Kierkegaard, 

the dizzying effect of looking into the boundlessness of one’s own possibilities. Without anxiety, there would be no possibility and therefore no capacity to grow and develop as a human being. What was striking to Kierkegaard was the individual’s complete freedom to choose one’s options; it is this freedom to choose that creates dread and anxiety. 

He claimed that our freedom of will and choice, make us responsible for who we choose to be. We have the freedom to reconstruct ourselves, leave our past selves, and evolve for the better. But this comes with a price: we must be responsible for all our choices and actions. It is a blessing and a curse. 

I love these quotes: "Freedom comes with responsibility which is the opposite of freedom." and "Choices come with consequences, good and bad which are the opposite of choices". 

 

2) The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz

"It is an observation that having many options to choose from, rather than making people happy and ensuring they get what they want, can cause them to stress and problematize decision-making." In his theory, he said that choice has made us humans not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied. 

• the more options we have, the fewer decisions we tend to make
• the more choices we have, the more we feel about missing out on something 
• more inclined to dissatisfaction, disappointment
• more prone to anxiety

 

-

A small example on this topic:

Last week I wanted to eat a cake. This rarely happens because I'm lactose intolerant, but on that day, I even decided to eat lactase enzyme just so I could enjoy the occasion. We had 2 options: Secret Recipe and Richiamo. So SR was located a bit farther from where we were at that time, so we chose R instead. I ordered my slice of cake and ate it. But unfortunately, it was terrible. So due to my anticipation and preparation to eat that slice of cake, my expectation was high, and when it didn't reach my expectation, I was disappointed. Truly, disappointed and I kept on thinking "Why didn't I choose Secret Recipe instead"?

Even after a week, I still remember the incident and wished I chose better. 

Imagine, if there were no options, only one cafe is available and the choice I have is either to have a cake or not. I would have nothing to compare it to, and the decision-making would be much easier. 

-

So what's the correlation here? 

I've been thinking about how many options we have nowadays. We can be whoever we want to be, we can eat whatever we want, and we can choose what to study, what to read, who to marry, where to go, and who to be friends with, with the modern world and the internet everything is almost limitless.

Everything is a choice and there are just too many options. Every choice that we make might tell us who we are, who we choose to be, and who we want to be. It's a responsibility in every choice. No wonder we are often anxious, it is hard to have to choose all the time and we expect it to be the best choice for us. 

 

-

So if having the freedom of choice is making me feel dreadful and more anxious, my question now is, how to find the balance? How much freedom we are supposed to have to be content with our lives and not be taunted by other choices? Do I need to create my own limitation? Am I anxious because I have too many options to choose from and I'm scared of choosing the wrong ones? Will I be more content with life if I have limited freedom instead? 

-

Thank you for reading my questions of the week.

Little Thing 259 : On Schopenhauer and Love

I got this quote from Schopenhauer:

"Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom."

Schopenhauer is the father of misery (in philosophy). He was pessimistic and dark, preaching about pain and the roles behind it. He figured out early on that pain is inevitable in life and he tried to make peace with it throughout his life. He was one of the early philosophers that combines ideas from Western and Eastern philosophy. I am usually interested in fusion ideas and teachings (like from Carl Jung or Hermann Hesse) instead of all based on the Western mind. 

He said that the will in our lives will drive our needs and desire, and our motivation to act in the world but this will can also be our source of dissatisfaction and misery in our life. We are often disappointed and frustrated. He called this "wille zum leben" or the will-to-live. For Schopenhauer, the will is in our unconscious mind and its core purpose is to keep us alive, to survive.

-

Schopenhauer said there are 2 options to deal with the problems of existence. 

The first option is to practice asceticism, he called these people, the 'sages', the special individuals that manage to rise above the demands of the will-to-live, the people that can see the natural drives in humans: sex, ego, selfishness, the need for a partner, validation, social approval, fame, money, etc, and to rise above these natural drives and make peace with them. They can overcome these desires and be at peace without them like a monk or a hermit. But this is a rather extreme approach.

The second option is a friendlier approach, he recommended the 'higher pleasures': meditation, reading, and philosophy, we are also encouraged to spend our lives engaging with art: poetry, music, and culture.  To find the beauty in everyday tasks, to search for the distinct smell of hope in destruction, to see light in the most hopeless condition, to find meaning in our pain, to be content in the chaos.

The safest way of not being very miserable is not to expect to be very happy. 

He reminded us that we are not crazy, that our pain and sadness are valid, that suffering is inevitable, we are not alone, the world is crazy, and that it is okay. This is the reality that we need to accept as a part of our lives and try to go on with it. For him, life got no greater purpose, we are here, we are alive and we pass on. 

So why I took note of Schopenhauer then? Not to say that I agree with everything he held on to, for me, what he shared is mostly the things that I already figured out, not something of a new revelation. But it is nice to see it in writing, I feel validated and entertained. But when Schopenhauer said love is a powerful illusion that can be the greatest force in human life but it actually leads to our unconscious need to survive mankind aka make more offspring for the next generation, I laughed, because it was a very cynical viewpoint. 

Is it fair to just treat love as an illusion that humankind needs?

-

I always remind both my younger siblings about pain and love - because they both came from a broken traumatic childhood early on so they have deeper issues dealing with relationships. I know it is scary to commit to love, to put your heart on a pedestal, to be weak, and to rely on others for your happiness. But to feel happy, you need to feel sad, to know what is love, you need to know what is pain, to see the light, you need to be in the dark. 

Once, I fell in love, hard. The epic love story, I guess. 

But I know the drama it brings onto the table, the mess, the chaos, the instability, the shame. There were so many emotions, so much pain, but yes, so much love as well. As someone that grew up in a dramatic environment and faced traumas throughout most of my teenage and early adult life, I couldn't put myself on that rollercoaster ride again. I wanted a normal drama-free life, so I left the relationship and I married a friend. Af is the friend, a partner, and someone I can rely on 24/7.

 

This was a clear choice. I still feel it is the most realistic and rational choice that I made for the life that I needed. I learned that I don't really need something epic, something huge, something that shines across the universe, I need just the basic things. So what if I had to deal with the heartbreak? Life is layers of heartbreaks, it is meant to be painful, and bitter. Love doesn't necessarily mean to own. Why I didn't choose the other love? Because at that age, during that phase, I know I'd break. Now I'm older, I see life with a much broader view, the painful wounds of traumatic family dramas are mostly healed, and I've made peace with a lot of turbulence in my life. I needed the healing time. 

As Thom Yorke said in this: "I will see you in the next life." 

And yes, so that's my take on pain of the unrequited love. Wait, did I get to the point yet? 

Okay, so life is painful, can't avoid it, pick your ride, and be ready to feel stuff. It's always a choice, don't be scared to make one and try to enjoy the ride. Fall in love, fall out of love, feel the pain, feel the heartbreaks, that's life. You don't have to choose the extreme way of avoiding all the things that make life colourful, but you can choose to pick your colours. 

Note: I haven't read any original works by Schopenhauer, but I compiled this based on my readings from articles/books and compilations written and compiled by others. So I'm making assumptions based on others' assumptions after reading him. Hihi :F

Books : Consolations of Philosophy

 

I just finished The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton, a noob 101 into philosophy without worrying about the heavy explanation (because it is written in modern English). In this book, we touch on 6 problems of everyday life with the help of 6 philosophers:

1. Consolation of Unpopularity by Socrates
2. Consolation of Not Having Enough Money by Epicurus
3. Consolation of Frustration by Seneca
4. Consolation of Inadequacy by Montaigne
5. Consolation of A Broken Heart by Schopenhauer
6. Consolation of Difficulties by Fredrich Neitzche 

For example, if you are frustrated with life, Alain de Botton will try to console you by quoting and interpreting Seneca on that chosen topic. 

Seneca says all frustration arises from a faulty view of the world, we are frustrated because we expect something to behave differently. We have our 'expectations'. He reminds us that the worst scenarios in life are always possible and to be ready for them. So that when it happens, you will be well-prepared and not be the victim of anger, grief, and frustration. 

It is entertaining, easy to read, and relevant, suitable for me because I just started on Western philosophy and their original books are just a bit too hard. I just can't simply plunge into essays by Montaigne or Schopenhauer on demand, I need to slowly crawl and reread and watch summary videos on Youtube and find easy translations into Modern English :F 

I particularly love chapters 2 and 5 of this book. 

- 

In chapter 5: Consolation for heartbreak from Arthur Schopenhauer, a well-known pessimist! It was a funny chapter that I do not fully agree with but entertaining nonetheless. He has this theory that human choose their partner based on unconscious natural selection. That we do not fully have control over who we find 'attractive' because unconsciously, we only have the natural desire to 'propagate' our species. We are living things and that is something that we need to do. The desire to have a partner is basically because of how our mind is wired - for the survival of the species and it is not fully concerned with our happiness. 

What is looked for in marriage is not intellectual entertainment, but the procreation of children. 

What he is saying is happy marriage is not entirely in our mind when we are choosing our partner, but a good partner for a good offspring is. So a 'happy marriage' is rather unnatural once we have kids and it is okay, as he is also equally committed to the idea that we all have meaningless existence: we live, we survive and we reproduce for the next generation, just like any other living things on earth so don't think too much about the unrequited love. Hahah.

Anyway, that's how I see it lah, both Alain de Botton and chosen philosopher put their context in each chapter and it was an interesting take. 

We must, between periods of digging in the dark, endeavor always to transform our tears into knowledge. 

-

This book is not really written for people that are already familiar with Western philosophy. It is a fun self-help/philosophy book, just swimming on the surface, cicah2 kaki in learning about these philosophers and what they come out with. So Alain de Botton's works are suitable for anyone just starting to read philosophy. 

Note: The School of Life on Youtube is one of his personal projects. 

Books - The Things I Read in February and the Suffering of Mind

I watched Imaginur alone at the cinema on Thursday, I walked almost 10k steps that day, I read about Epicurus during lunch (I'm currently reading The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton) and realized I could use some of his ideas because it resonates with me and I've been practicing some of it for a while. 

I've been enjoying my assignment so far. This year I want to read 'hard' books and learn about heavier topics, so more classics (I have much catching up to do) and perhaps more philosophy and spiritualism. 'Hard' in this case is because I need many references and reread to understand - this might not be hard for you, but it does for me.

I've been struggling with some issues lately. So to avoid jumping into any unnecessary impulses, I need to investigate the rationality of my needs and desire. As Epicurus said :

Just as medicine confers no benefit if it does not drive away physical illness, so philosophy is useless if it does not drive away the suffering of the mind. 

Also, writing might help, perhaps I need to try journaling again :

There are few better remedies for anxiety than thought. In writing a problem down or airing it in conversation we let its essential aspects emerge. And by knowing its character, we remove, if not the problem itself, then its secondary, aggravating characteristics: confusion, displacement, surprise.

-

The annoying thing about this whole 'learning phase' is, the more I learn, the stupider I feel - like there are so much more out there that I don't know of, so many more books that I need to refer to, and it is a humbling feeling: like you are a minuscule plankton in the Pacific ocean. 

Here are the books I read & listened to in February :

• books about relationships: Monogamy (Sue Miller), The Possession (Annie Ernaux), Lean Your Loneliness Slowly Against Mine (Klara Hveberg)
• graphic novels: A Gift From a Ghost (Borja Gonzalez), Mamo (Sas Milledge), Just Friends (Ana Oncina)
• philosophy: The Socratus Express (Eric Weiner)
• classics: The House of Dead (Fyodor Dostoyevsky), Knulp, Narcissus & Goldmund, Demian, Strange News from Another Star (Hermann Hesse)

Little Things 62 : Questions & Writing

The more I learn about life, the more questions pops-up. 

No one said it will be an easy ride.  

I took an online class on the Introduction of Philosophy from University of Edinburg to challenge my critical mind. I am very much interested in it ever since I was in high school : to understand about life and human in particular. 

Never-ending questions.

In the course, it teaches you which particular way to ask the right questions, as a guide. Arguably, no one can determine which way is the exact right and wrong way to think, so somehow they also teach you the better way to think and argue on that. What matters to you, and why ?