Independence?

I have never done anything that is entirely my own. This sounds absurd, right?

But, let me ask, that breath you just took…is that you?

Did you breathe in you?

That makes no sense.

Well, if I don’t breathe, I die. But, if what I breathe comes from something that is not me, then I am not living alone.

I never have been.

I did not ask to come into being. Something, whether it be God, chance, science or just simply my mother created me. I did not give life to myself.

Therefore, you can never claim absolute dependence. ‘Something’ caused you, because the idea of you causing you is preposterous.

The Impossible Question

“Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly, and was unconscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly I awoke, and there I lay, myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man.”

Thoughts?

Comments?

Philosophical Advise Needed

If I say there exists an inside (i);

I am also saying there exists and outside (o).

I could then come up with a third category – a boarder one:

The set that contains o and i.

The definition of inside is: “the inner side of a thing.”
So, let us presume that the broader category including i and o is called t (things).

But, we have produced a useless statement – a trap!

Because, the definition of a thing is “an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.”

The problem is we just gave this overarching class a name: thing; which is nonspecific..
But, I wanted to be specific with my naming, I wanted the name to only include inside and outside.

I wanted the entire set to only be comprised of (i,o).

But, what I am neglecting, is the fact the () carries some significance to it.

I don’t have to define it as a ‘thing’ because the moment I put () around i,o…it becomes a singular entity.
What I am highlighting is a predicated relationship:

An outside is defined as “the external side of something,” while an inside is: “the inner side of a thing.”
The common factor being a ‘thing’.

My point being is this:

The definition of inside is predicated by an outside and and vice versa;

Furthermore, they also share the existence of a ‘thing’.

But, this ‘thing’ must be nonspecific, but my use runs contrary to its definition;

I want the set to only include inside and outside.

So,

these become my questions:

what would be the above (overarching) class of a inside/outside?

Even if the overarching set could be categorized by a word, would it not be a tautology?

If anything ever takes upon the existence of all, can ‘all’ not only be defined by the parts that make up all?

Chinese & The Dollar Collapse

On October 1, 2016, the Chinese Yuan will become a world reserve currency alongside the “U.S. dollar, yen, euro, the British pound and the Swiss franc.” It will account for 10.92% of IMF total reserve currency.

The Chinese have been planning  to become the world’s best economy for some time and this is the next step and a big one. They currently are the second largest world economy to the United States (of course). But they are doing many things including becoming an international reserve currency and establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which opened in January of this year.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-24/yuan-flunks-fed-haven-test-as-imf-prepares-it-for-reserve-basket

 

An Isolated Human

There is nobody now –
just me.
All I know for certain is that my death awaits me.
But in what timespan – the answer remains unknown.
In fact, he had lost entire track of time himself.
Suns’ rose and Suns’ set.
Moons’ waxed and wanned –
even briefly fleeing the night’s plane.
At first, I thought to count the cycles,
but then I figured,
what was the point:
there was nothing alive to share it with –
nor would there ever be again.