A little thinking from my part.

The Man and His Self

           

            What is it that separates a man from all other creatures on earth? There is a simple answer to this question that may create an avalanche of thoughts to the common mind. That answer is the ability for us to be humans and not just organisms, such ability can be defined as consciousness.

            A man’s consciousness is never limited nor definite. It is defined by objects surrounding a man. A man without an object is nothing. It is the instinctive aim of a man’s nature to make sense of the object, that sense triggers his consciousness, which is the subject of his nature. Each individual has his own objects, shared at times, true, but always containing the image of his own nature, of his consciousness. A man becomes an object when he lacks an object. Thanks to man’s nature, mysterious of origin and abstract to understand if it can be consider a concept, man can distinguish the object, then reflect and be conscious, therefore a man’s nature gives way to his consciousness.

             A man’s nature is constituted by four complex powers, the bases of the self. These powers are love, reason, will and instinct. In the absence of these powers man is nothing, and can not exist.  To these four powers man can not oppose or resist. All of them are indefinite and have no limits just as a man’s nature does. Consciousness is product of a man’s nature, therefore it has no limits either, when a man’s consciousness becomes definite and limited man becomes a brute. There is only one situation when man can recognize himself as limited, that situation is when he can perceive the indefinite consciousness of his species because he can not perceive his own, this perception is man’s impotence to realize of his indefinite powers: love, reason, will and instinct. A man’s life becomes a fallacy when he thinks of these powers as limited. An example of this is when a man thinks that what is incomprehensible to him is incomprehensible to his species, despite the fact that this particular man knows the consciousness of his species is unlimited he underestimates it, because he himself can not realize of the indefinite powers of his own. Underestimating the indefinite consciousness of humanity is the feces of a man’s ego and fear, products of a definite consciousness.

            Despite the fact a man’s consciousness is infinite there is a large, but definite number of things men can not explain. There are things that prevail in our minds as enigmas. Where have men come from? Who created man? What is humanity’s purpose? Did space and time have an origin, will they have an end? All this questions puzzle our minds and are the never ending journey of our consciousness. Man tries to explain these things through a complex concept that has only served to divide humanity, yet it is an essential part of life, morals, and values for a large part of humanity, the concept: religion. Religion has never been a false thing; it is something that is an essential part of us. No matter what type of religion, it is its purpose to give us explanations for what we can not understand nor comprehend. Religion is God, god’s essence is in the self of a man, god is the feelings of man, god is the emotions these feelings create within a man. God is the realization of the self within a man, a realization only interpreted through and by emotions. We need not to praise god, because our religion is our own realization of our emotional states, when we praise god is when we actually praise our content selves, when we ask god for help is when we ask our selves for help. God itself is fantasy. Self is real. Religion is real. Religion is in the self. Religion is a realization of the self. Religion is not to be categorized. All men have the same religion; all men share the same enigmas.          

 

 

Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn?

  

I found a very interesting article about President Hugo Chavez and American actor, Sean Penn. According to this article the relation between the both is quite friendly. Ironically the American author shows sympathy for Hugo Chavez, thing I consider very interesting since usually the average American citizen has a very low opinion about the Venezuelan leader.

I don’t really agree with Hugo Chavez’s way of saying things in his public speeches; however, I do think he is a promising leader for Venezuela and think that the American media overly condemns his actions with a negative perspective. The reality is that Hugo Chavez did get chosen by the majority of people in the Venezuelan 2006 elections by winning 62.87% of the votes. He also pushed Venezuelan Industry to a great extent and nationalized Venezuelan Oil Fields, factor that the people favored and is helping the country’s economy currently.

With this said I wouldn’t make critics about Sean Penn’s sympathy for Chavez like this article does, but rather I will come to the conclusion that Sean Penn is a very well informed person about the reality of United States foreign policy and international politics.

The article is contained in the following link:

 

  http://incontiguousbrick.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/what-the-hell-is-actor-sean-penn-doing-in-venezuela/#more-282

Why is Che Guevara disliked in the United States?

Take time to analyze this video

  

            I find it very interesting when I see videos like this, which make sarcastic and unethical criticism of Che and Communism. They don’t realize that the United States has killed way more people than Che Guevara. It is very sad to see this in professional television. I am not generalizing about America or American media, but I think in cases like this, one should make reality be known.

 

            It is obvious that Che Guevara is not commonly viewed as a heroic figure here in the states like in a lot of countries around the world, from South America to South Africa Che is admired and respected. By the way I am not including the ignorant teenagers that wear Che Guevara t-shirts, since most of these young pop culture followers do not have the sketchiest idea of what Che stands for.

            How could we explain the dislike for Che Guevara in the United States, when so many people in the world venerate him? There is a simple answer for this question that may puzzle our minds. The answer lies behind the United States economical system and international politics. Che Guevara was against both, and he not only made this known to the public through his persuasive speeches, but also took action to fight for what he believed was right. Che Guevara fought for a pure form of democracy, which is founded on the basis of a well administered communist system, not the kind led by Stalin, which was not even communism; it was abuse of power in the name of communism.

            Che Guevara was against inequality, stratification of races, corruption and imperialism, things that the United Sates was promoting indirectly through its presence in countries all over the world. The Unites States backed up a corruptive elite in Bolivia and Cuba. It went to Vietnam for no apparent reason, just to fight that thing called communism, which just as capitalism is a system of economy whose ultimate goal is utopia. However, the United States irrationally thought this thing called communism was going to take over the world, and therefore interfere with their economical power; clearly when invading Vietnam they were led by their egorism.