Stewing in the Chaos

A big portion of scientific research depends on modeling.  Working on the periphery of academia, that's more than clear. The irony is that while much of my time has been filled with scientific quantitative modeling (I'm currently reading two texts on statistics and practicing a lot of Matlab programming) and financial modeling (modeling my own finances; I need more practice with this), I've neglected something which has always, up until this point, was the foundation, and often times was more important than, both my career and finances: spiritual and psychological modeling -- modeling my personal well-being.

Oftentimes it's easy for me to analyze someone else's life and find recurring "themes" (as I like to call them). Themes being his or her own loop of behavior in times of certain circumstances. It's a meta-analysis that's extremely interesting to me. It's essentially modeling.

A lot of people don't learn from their mistakes. A lot of people make the same mistakes over and over. Conversely, a lot of people consistently make good choices. 

I often wonder why a lot of people don't learn from their mistakes. For the most part, I think the root cause is lack of awareness of their repeated decisions. And that's why self-awareness is so important. That's why reflection is so important, in my opinion -- the ability to "deconstruct" oneself.  I admit, it's kind of scary to do. Most people don't like to think of themselves as in the wrong, so attempting to reconsider oneself is de-facto thinking something is wrong with oneself. Our natural tendency, our interior pride, is both our strength and our downfall.

Of course, I'm also stuck in my own sinister loops as well. They're hard to break. And for me, it's mostly always when I'm in neck deep in trouble is when I realize "Oh shit, I've done it again".  And the steeping process begins -- again.

However, there's a silver lining (I personally like to think there's always is a silver lining). In my own life, I've noticed that instances such as these, when I'm stewing in the chaos I've created (or that I'm afflicted with -- hey, I'm not always my own executioner), is when I'm most capable of realizing my situation and breaking free from these vicious cycles. It's like an anti-second-chance. Think of receiving a big break. This is the opposite of that, but still an opportunity to do better.

A part of me wants to react in this situation. To simply do whatever I can to get out of the stew as fast as possible. That means making less than sound decisions and taking desperate measures. Sure, these work out sometimes. But desperate measures, by definition, have a negative-expected value (I haven't done the math but experiences prove quite certain -- I'm realizing).

Rather, I'm forgetting that boiling in this mess is itself a good thing. I realize that last sentence sounds kind of morbid. Oh well, the situation is what it is, might as well call it what it is. The big question: why not let the consequences happen? Instead of running from them, reacting to them in nonsensical ways, embrace the consequences. Embrace the tragedy. Embrace the situation. Boil in your own stew of chaos. Let it transform you. Let it embed itself in your head and heart. It will eventually pass. Let it do what its supposed to do until then, which is to remind you that you never want to be put in this situation again. Lest to sound unfeeling, let me make clear that I do realize that not everyone puts themselves willingly into awful situations; this paragraph is explicitly only for those who sincerely, after deep reflection, acknowledge that mostly everything that happens to us is the result of one's actions in some way, shape, or form -- even if just a little detail is one's own fault, that's the action that's due for critique in proportion to the situation. Or, for the more radical existentialist take, even if it was never your fault at all, still, simmer in the mess. It happened for a reason (or, for the existentialists, make a reason and choice for never letting it happen again).

*I notice I interject a lot within my own train of thought. I try to keep interjections to a minimum, only using them to add some "umph" to the tone and readability. I'm aware seemingly off-tangent interjections are more the style of nihilists. I don't consider myself nihilist at all, or at least not in the traditional nihilist sense (lol at the oxymoron: traditional nihilist).*

Sentiments

I'm just going to share some writings that I'm reflecting on at this moment.

Mary Oliver's "Wild Geese":

You do not have to be good.

You do not have to walk on your knees

For a hundred miles through the desert, repenting.

You only have to let the soft animal of your body

love what it loves.

Tell me about your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.

Meanwhile the world goes on.

Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain

are moving across the landscapes,

over the prairies and the deep trees,

the mountains and the rivers.

Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,

are heading home again.

Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,

the world offers itself to your imagination,

calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting --

over and over announcing your place

in the family of things.

An essay about Sartrean and de Beauvoirian Existentialism: click here

This G.K. Chesterton quote:

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” – Broadcast talk 6-11-35

Cheers,
Aaron

Know Thyself

I wondered whether to give the Greek for the title of this blog, but it seemed both fitting and not-so-fitting with the rest of the blog, for these reasons:
It's such an old saying. Plato used it. Giving the title in Greek would mean I'm attempting to go back in time. Back to the beginning, back to square one. In addition, it would show I'm also attempting to work on the fundamental aspects of myself. Just like how the Greek ancient civilization was the foundation for the Roman civilization (barring of course everything prior to the Greeks... )
Yet, giving the title in Greek would, of course, be pretentious. Who speaks Greek? Big headed writers (ahem *T.S. Eliot* ahem), papers for impressing people in ivory towers. Attempting to work on the fundamental aspects of myself is an exercise in simplicity, an exercise in trying to work on the simple actions of my day-to-day living, rather than focusing on all the complex situations I'm in.

How did I get here?

Friends, I want to change my life. And I've realized the only way to do that isn't to make some elaborate scheme. It's by working on all the things my little errors. Not my big errors.

I've realized that all the big, bad things happening in my life is all just the result of little errors that, by themselves, don't seem to be so wrong, but actually mix together to make up the big mess I'm in (that sounds dramatic... it's not really that big of a mess, but I've been blessed with the clarity to see my life isn't going in the direction I want it to go).

 So, ironically... I'm going to deconstruct myself and focus on all the little pieces that make the whole. Kind of gestalt, really... and even more so... kind of like, Derrida. It's ironic because I don't consider myself a strong postmodernist thinker.

---- An actual life event:

So this past weekend I went to UCCC hosted by the UC Davis Newman Center. Awesome speakers and great people. It was awesome, and God really spoke to me through it. I learned a lot about what I need to do now, and really, the big message of the weekend for me was: Aaron, yes, you need to work on the fundamental aspects of yourself. You need to change your seemingly isolated and simple behaviors, because they're, in the long run, hurting you.

It's like playing a negative expectation game. In the long run, you'll come out the loser.

I don't want to play a negative expectation game anymore, guys.

Happy Lent everyone!

Discouragement enough?

“You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!”-

Line 76, "The Burial of the Dead", of The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot.

When I'm being rebuked and berated
the first thought is you, first
you, first
What nerve

When anger and hatred
is expressed unsedated
not prorated but exponentiated
I'm supposed to hold my tongue?

It's a bad defense
I feel no less guilty and
I'm aware of the consequences
of my own placed burdens

Or perhaps I don't
I don't really know the extent
And this treatment is deserved
Oh shit, I really messed up

And now, the pain compounded
I start a new journey
More or less more lonely
May God have mercy

Prodigal

"It's not the first mistake that kills you. It's usually the second, or the third." - Unknown.

How about the fourth? Or the fifth? Ad infinitum.

I like the Monty Hall problem. It's unique because, well, first it's essentially gambling. Well, actuarily (pun intended) to be more fair, it's risk analysis and probability. The math could speak for itself. And now, in a way I never thought of it before, it's also attractive in a philosophical way.

Three doors, you choose one. You find out which one is truly a mistake, and are given the choice whether to switch your chosen door or not. The real kicker is that all of the doors are actually a Pandora's box. Whatever you open is equally a prize and full of trouble. Kind of like Schrödinger' Cat, except superposition is not ephemeral, and the conclusion is both objective and subjective to whomever chooses a door. So would you really want to change your door? ... Or, in a totally Camus-ish way, should you even play?

This may very well be a bunch of nonsense.

Would the prodigal son be as infamous without the father? Without the father, only the pigs would notice his sad state. And they wouldn't even care.