Lessons and Thoughts about this and that; Principles

Yesterday at a university class a question arose regarding grades and the capacity rather of every student to obtain an A on the course. It got into an interesting discussion ranging from capability to discipline to probabilities; way too many variables for a simple question I thought. It ended up on truth and the capacity to learn for every individual in this world. My first thought was to clarify if we can all see and hear the same and therefore learn the same things ( I like simplifying things, yes). On one end of the spectrum it appears that not very human being can hear or see the same things; some due to age, circumstances, illness, etc cannot see nor hear nor learn the same things; and at the other end of the spectrum there are those who can hear, see and learn exceptionally well and therefore equally. In the middle, there are also those whom distractions won't allow them to see nor hear nor learn fully, again, circumstances. Can those circumstances be removed so we can

Years ago at one of my first university classes, the first in Economics for sure, I got on a heated disagreement with the professor teaching it, that would almost cost me to be expelled from the class. Years later I came to understand that the professor wasn't disagreeing with me but rather that for that specific basic class he taught I was asking questions that were not relevant. Furthermore I learned that there are different and opposing views to almost anything in life. The basics of one thought on Economics is the principle of scarcity, the idea that there are only limited resources and unlimited needs and wants, therefore the basis of these studies, how to work around that issue; the invisible hand takes over and regulates a free market economy or a dictator comes along and he decides on the other end of the spectrum and everything and anything in between is the study of Economics. I am overly simplifying of course but this is not an Economics class to say the least, so fo

Throughout the history of humanity we have developed this fascination with "north". We have learned to read the stars, the sun, nature hints, all sort of methods to "direct" us where we want to go. It is evident that if we want to go somewhere one must "follow" a direction, as we won't get nowhere if: a. we don't have a final destination in mind and b. we don't follow the direction that points to that destination. Do all humans have an inner compass that moves us all towards the same point? Is this the so called "conscience"? or Enlightenment Path perhaps?  is this the Light of Christ?  A long time ago I took a road trip from Caracas, Venezuela, all the way south to Lima, Peru (that is near 3,000 Km once is all said and done). A series of bus after bus after bus after bus; very few well paved highways; a variety of foods, of people; plenty of uncomfortable nights sleeping on a non reclining seat, and lots of beautiful sig

This should be an easy topic to write as I have been loved so much by so many people, so my comments are more from that experience. I do not claim to know anything, specially on this topic, but rather what idealistically speaking things are supposed to be, at least in my head, that's my disclaimer. What is love? is it that sweet, all empowering, overtaking feeling we get when we see each other? is it that "need" we feel to be close? is it that feeling of safety and comfort we feel as we hold each other? Or is it that strong and purposely made decision that we must make every day during those hard times? I think from what I understand that love as it pertains to a significant other has both of those ingredients, full of strong emotions, and yet filled with a constant decision to keep it alive, to not let that fire go off. On that note it is where I want to compare it to my experience with watching a group of boy scouts start a fire with only rocks, a bunch of wood

It is ironic to be writing about this on a Friday night I suppose, as it is one of the preferred nights to party rather but here I go anyhow as it will be read on another day :) I grew up not drinking nor smoking nor using drugs as I was taught by my religion and parents; I always thought it was such an easy thing to do, to refrain myself from all of these substances. As I grew older I found myself still not ingesting any substance that would alter my state, including coffee (though I must admit to love the aroma of it as it brings memories of my beloved grandmother and the afternoon cafecitos that she shared with us kids after a mandatory nap).  Later on in life I found myself defending this concept, this idea of no substances left and right. As I moved to North America and got involved in the restaurant/bar business I even thought more and more about it. I had to defend more and more my position, I have even tasted some of it just to say I don't like it either (from a sim

I have been reflecting lately, due in part to the desire to post something new on my blog and due in part to a class I am taking, about the subject of personal responsibility and human interaction. We are definitely not Robinson Crusoe’s that live in the island of Despair but any stretch of the imagination, quite the opposite, we live in very intricate societies, surrounded by many many circles of friends, family and associates.  It is the complexity of that human interaction what intrigues me. Are we “affected” by others? Do we “affect” others? If they and we do, to what extent is this effect?  Where is the line of personal responsibility drawn? Are we justified to act in certain way as a result of somebody’s behavior? Of as a result of their effect on us? or vice versa?  “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins …” claims an LDS article of faith; ... their own, not the neighbor’s, nor the provoker’s, nor the tempter’s, but our own sins rather. Free

To start I could quote Heraclitus phrase that nothing is constant except change. In Buddhism "annica" describes that impermanence. Even dialectical materialism taught by Engels or Marx thought of this constant state of change. I think we are all in agreement so far in the fact that change is constant. To address the five W's and one H it is evident that some of them are answered simply from the prior statement, the only difficult one and that I want to address is How? How do we change? specially if change is unavoidable. First let me talk a little about the unavoidability of change. If it is a fact that we are in a constant state of change what happens when we are simply couch potatoing? is it possible to avoid change? what if I refuse to change? What if I don't want to? ... yup, you got it, it is not possible! change is happening as you read this, and will continue to happen forever. (on a side note someone said that time is nothing but a mere measurement of