when pigs fly.

in quite simplistic terms, there is an argument which attempts to prove God's existence, absolutely, on the grounds of man's conception of 'perfection.' this 'ontological proof' is as follows: i postulate that there is a perfect being and since i am not that perfect being there must be one somewhere in the universe, so that perfect being must be God.

to me, this argument is on par with the fool who demands that because he imagines pigs with the capabilities of flight, they must exist. in this universe, in any other universe parallel to this one, pigs do not fly. and why don't they fly? because it is not in their nature to. just as it is not in my nature as a human being to know absolutely everything. all things being as they are, they are not as they are not meant to be. were pigs able to fly then we would not have to imagine them doing so. likewise, the argument that God exists merely because i can imagine 'perfection' does very little to prove His existence in an absolute manner.

also, what is meant by man's conception of 'perfection.' i daresay it varies quite dramatically from fellow to fellow. the man who dreams of a universe in which pigs fly might consider that universe to be perfect, however perfection is dependent upon imperfection to distinguish itself against. that is, were there a universe in which pigs flew and that was the only universe in existence, the man who dreams of pigflight would not consider it perfection, he would merely accept it as reality. so perfection may mean a great many things, but it does not prove that any of those things absolutely have to exist out of necessity, this is all just wishful thinking and nonsense.

directions.

the individual. the collective. and orthodoxy.

"no man is an island."

nor is he a city, a state, or entire continent; and with that the statement is rendered an illogical self-defeating waste of breath. for the very word 'collective' presupposes multiple separate individuals. as for orthodoxy, it is 'a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards ' according to dictionary.com. this sort of ideological laziness is what makes robots and slaves of men. that one should merely accept the conventional and the 'standard' erected by those long before him is, in this writer's opinion, the worst mistake a person can make. the courage to bravely forge one's own trail and beliefs is now unheard of. integrity is thrown away for the sake of subjectivity and remaining neutral so as to not offend. yet, it is the man who stands in the face of the world and chooses to believe as he does who stands not only alone, but against the collective. he pays no mind to the illusory towers of orthodoxy and the conventional standards. he is his own standard. his conviction the result of reaching conclusions on his own without the dependency upon a system to fill in the blanks for him. he lets them lie blank. the mystery intrigues him, gives cause to his existence. the pursuit of more and more truth & knowledge. who can know all there is? what a sad state that person must live in.

when each man realises his status as an island he is forced with the decision to either accept responsibility for his home or he may reject it and instead surrender to foreign powers of control in exchange for the comfort he holds above truth. the defiant island-man must live for himself, the care of his island, the state of his affairs, he is no longer able to blame another for his shortcomings and failures.

in a world of overconnectivity, run by cables and technology, the island-man embraces the benefits these technologies afford without allowing his being to become dependent upon such potential vices. they remain virtue by their recognition as tools and not as necessities. he reaches across the ocean which separates each consciousness from the others and communicates with others, let they, each of them, remain as they are.. islands. separate. it is only in this realisation that they may eventually form a true community. for what is a love which demands that each person bow before the other's control? it can only lead to utter ruin. but two, who remain individually so, may freely and completely love one another without sacrificing their integrity and becoming dependent children.

[think] for yourself.
[act] of your own volition.
[change] your world.

being an island is not such a sad state of affairs afterall.