Home > philosophy > We are All Weird

We are All Weird

weird_eyesWell, some things are normal; others are too bizarre by relative standards. Some things are good; others are evil. Yet, also, there are things that hit the point of normalcy. While others step towards the bi-polar (extreme), others are too comfortable to stay in the middle. Isn’t that weird? The varieties, the multitudes, and the differences of things are like jigsaw puzzles where a single amorphous slice is mustered with the rest to form a single picture.  So with much oddity, we claim this jigsaw puzzle as the world we live in.

You might  wonder what suddenly prompted me to write about this. Let me tell you what has dawned on me yesterday while doing my survey in the northern municipalities of Iloilo.  In the long range of the national highway, I saw a motorcycle running on its own towards us.  I wonder how a ghoul could hold such speed when his body is much lighter than a feather to possibly resist the strength of the wind and the law of momentum. Unless he had the power to turn himself as a solid bulwark, or he had been sent by God along with the city of angles, then that would be acceptable. When our marks  cross in paradoxical points of the Zeno principle, I was perplexed to see a man lying prostrate on the seat while driving his motorcycle. Wow, cool! Was this man practicing for a race or just mastering how to sleep comfortably while driving accordingly to aero-dynamic theory? Even our driver was greatly amused that he doubted whether what we saw was truly a man or an alien showcasing his valor.

Well, it is just strange how human behavior, by means of folly, can sometimes turn someone into a bozo.  All the while, I thought that there were people who are created to be like that and we often call them “the weirdos” simply because we do not know them personally. On the other hand, most of our acquaintances are considered normal, except for a few, since we have accepted their idiosyncrasies: their uniqueness has turned homogenous with our perception. What do I mean by that?

Imagine, a new employee could look horribly at first glance, only to realize that she isn’t that bad looking after a week of being with her. This is due to the changing of perception in time. The “uniqueness of man” is what makes him weird to others. But that would potentially fade when we get to know him better. Now if we try to cleanse our common perception and be a little keen over these things, we discover that all, including man, were created by means of oddity. And there is no way we could avoid such ordeals because, whether we like it or not, we meet them everyday in various forms and in various ways. For instance:  I remember how my fiancée danced awkwardly over Yoyo Ma’s Obrigado Brazil and  personally believed she was the best dancer in the world. Ngeek!  She even called me “weird” when I suggested to make her kimbot-kimbot a little graceful given that she was dancing in latin rhythm. What is weirder is when she repeatedly apologizes for her weirdness which I find hilarious at times. OMG, if she just realizes that she performs better by playing music than in interpretative dancing.

You and I and everybody we know are weird. On the contrary to the claim that weirdos are people we just noticed recently,  which might be true in some instances, and if we draw our perception deeper, even the persons we get accustomed to are weird in their own “unique” behaviors.  It is just that we couldn’t notice them because we have accepted all their crookedness .

Now with this conjecture, we inevitably start to ask: Is there someone we could find as perfectly normal? The answer may either be complex or too simple depending on our judgment: That someone is still we have yet to know and we still have yet to encounter.

***

P. S. 1. Sometimes, weirdness tacitly implies negativity which, in fact, is very wrong. On the contrary, it is this weirdness that colors this world beautifully.

Advertisements
Categories: philosophy Tags: ,
  1. July 7, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Tsk tsk… You really have a way with fact and fiction… you’d make a daring and dashing novelist. Haha… and remember, we are weird and unique – just like everyone else! haha =P

    • TóTómel
      July 8, 2009 at 4:29 am

      just like anybody else..hehehe

  2. July 8, 2009 at 3:21 am

    Blame it to the quarks and strings within and among us…

    • TóTómel
      July 8, 2009 at 4:28 am

      hahaha.. i choose not brother, otherwise it will be like more of condemning the essence of our uniqueness.hehehe

  3. July 8, 2009 at 5:25 am

    Hahaha – partly i think Igsoon, the essence that is quarky in nature, stringlike in nature, restless, in search of freedom, seeking “normalcy”, crossing what is normal through the human eye. Weird-like or normal – both are restless quarks and strings in the half-truth that physics preaches, and in the spiritual parlance, the “fire” within. Quark theorists said it’s good to keep some distance, allow ourselves to appear “weird-like” as if set aside from the normal because the closer the quarks are to each other, the less interaction between them. Quarks have weaker forces when in extreme proximity. It is sometimes the price of institutional conformity hahaha…

    • TóTómel
      July 8, 2009 at 6:50 am

      Kool1 Even weirdness has a natural foundation as seen in physics. well, i guess you are a lot weirder than i thought brother. hahaha

  4. July 8, 2009 at 8:09 am

    Exactly – one weird guy named Heisenberg thought so – the uncertainty principle, the unpredictability of matter, the weirdness of human behavior, the randomness of evolution, hahaha. So your title is perfectly aligned with physics don’t you think? My gravatar – it’s a telltale sign of maintaining some epistemological distance from fellow weird creatures hehe. If you’re not convinced, try marriage haha. Manghihina ako otherwise hahaha.

    • TóTómel
      July 9, 2009 at 4:12 am

      i agree brother, though i havent really thought it has alligned to some exact physical principles.hehehe

      brother, i think i am learning so much from you and i thank you for every mind stimulating comment. now that i have been captivated by your generosity, i guess you should not cease in imparting your knowledge through posting comments on my page. i am sure it is not just me that learns from you but a lot more of our brethren who accidentally click on this page.hehehe

      …and about this Heisenberg, i guess it would be best if you introduce us together.hehehe

      • July 9, 2009 at 4:47 am

        Sus Ginoo! Over a glass of tuba lang gud. Si Heisenberg – wala lang nay mahimo sa una hehe. A theory is a theory and science itself teaches me to ask. Belief in a theory is another leap of faith and science hates this part hehehe…

        • TóTómel
          July 9, 2009 at 8:32 am

          hahaha…buit it is thru this belief that we tend to explore the wonder. so it’s worth a leap…and it’s not actually just leaping but embracing as well, or else learning will be shallow, half-sided and incongruent.hehehehe

          with regards to theory, i deem it as the most important part of science for it opens up dimensions for exploration thus keeping man’s imagination active yet anxious to search for more. in other word, a “world-bridger.” hehehe

          • July 9, 2009 at 8:41 am

            Hehehe – embracing without being swallowed. Even a belief on the need for scrutiny over one’s belief on a scientific and religious theory remains desirable. Ain’t it weird – the maze of human thinking?

            • TóTómel
              July 9, 2009 at 8:50 am

              well, the best thing to do brother is to accept our common lot: we are definitely weird by thinking over our weirdness.hehehehe

              Eh, being swallowed temporarily posts no threat to me.hehehe

              • July 9, 2009 at 8:57 am

                Ayn Rand hated being swallowed by the Russian communist thinking and so morphed into the other extreme pole and totem of godless capitalism, casting her faith in the dollar sign than on the Cross hehe…

                • TóTómel
                  July 9, 2009 at 9:07 am

                  Replicating Atlas, she thought she carried the world only to realize she was, in reality, contained in the world. isnt that weird? hehehe

                  SWALLOWED!

                • July 9, 2009 at 9:12 am

                  And likewise, we can only BEFRIEND our weirdness and the folly of our systems, theories, ideologies only to some extent.

                • TóTómel
                  July 9, 2009 at 9:15 am

                  Amen to that brother 🙂

                • July 9, 2009 at 11:05 am

                  Grabeha na jud ninyo naabtan diri… Nagsubay lang ko… From Karl Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to Freud to Jung… From quantum physics to psych… That’s weird… Haha!

                  Anyway, my share of weirdness… Kung OT, allowed ha kay “weird” man atong subject…

                  During college, I have read a book by a physicist – The Philosopher’s Stone… Weird this book is, the physicist seemed more of a philosopher… This book opened the door of quantum mechanics to me. Although hangtud karon, murag dili jud ko gihapon kasabot… Hehehe…

                  Relating to quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies to paired measurements, such as position and momentum. The uncertainty principle simply means that at subatomic particle level, one cannot accurately measure both properties. As one aims to be precise with one measurement, the other one becomes less precise… This is so because of the system with which the measurements are taken – subatomic level. The components’ behavior approaches that of a wave.

                  Heisenberg was a protege of Niels Bohr. Einstein was one of the major critics of this principle. He had wonderful debates with Niels Bohr. Einstein’s take was more of determinism and realism in terms of measurements and he believed that the uncertainty of measurements is due to a certain lack of understanding in the reality of subatomic particles.

                  Popular culture always misunderstands the uncertainty principle and is conflated with observer effect. Popular culture also extends this principle to deterministic objects.

                  It is important that we delineate the underlying physics applies to our observable world. All non-submicroscopic objects and properties are bent more towards Newtonian Physics. Particles and objects moving in spacetime are tackled by the physics of relativity. The theory of relativity has extended Newtonian Physics. Quantum mechanics deals with the underlying principles of the atomic structure. Since the previous two deals with deterministic approaches, there was a certain clash with the proponents of the different thoughts when quantum mechanics was introduced.

                  Now, does quantum mechanics play a part in human weirdness? Logically, maybe so if one reduces the human model to a purely organic nature of atomic components. However, it is a known experimental fact that the more that we humans try to be random, the more that we become predictable or auto-correlated. Now isn’t that weird?

                  So, after Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, who wants to discuss about what happened to Schrodinger’s cat? 😀

                • TóTómel
                  July 10, 2009 at 4:24 am

                  Now, this is truly a work of a genius utod. thanks for sharing this. i guess there isnt too much to wonder about determinism as opposed to human natural mechnics for they both travel in bipolars. You have a laureate on Dfish page – it’s worth a read. and after a long exposition, i have come to admire you more and more. 🙂 For the progress of our faith, work in the way of christ. my prayers fro you always.

                  …and with Schrodinger’s cat, i have seen it few years back but it had constantly escaped my comprehension since then. Should you be interested in mentoring this hollow mind, please write about this some time. 🙂

                • July 10, 2009 at 10:53 am

                  Schrodinger’s cat is actually a paradox out of one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics… 😀 Entanglement… 🙂

                  Oo nakita ko na ang page… Nahuya ko gani kay daw indi man ko amo na ka mayo… Hehehe… Nag-email na ko sa iya… 😀

                • TóTómel
                  July 12, 2009 at 5:03 am

                  hahaha…let it be a pure laurel utod.hehehe. you deserve that! 🙂

              • July 9, 2009 at 9:10 am

                Yes, we can only rebel against our weirdness to some extent hehe…

          • July 9, 2009 at 8:53 am

            “with regards to theory, i deem it as the most important part of science for it opens up dimensions for exploration thus keeping man’s imagination active yet anxious to search for more.”

            This is profound Igsoon! I like this synthesis…Theories are like working tables for scientists, or the operating tables of surgeons. The problem is when those tables get worn-out, irrelevant because new ways of doing surgery are peeped through. There are i think only modes of responses: resistance or a sense of adventure towards something new, right? When Freud published his groundbreaking book Interpretations of Dreams in 1900, he was scorned, and it took 8 years to sell the first edition of 600 copies. Nobody believed in the power of dreams. Now we do…

            • TóTómel
              July 9, 2009 at 8:58 am

              of course we do. what just saddens me is the way it is linked to sexual fractures of human consciousness – that even Freudian fanatics would interpret the image of a frog in a dream as the male meat. hahaha… i guess, that table, based on what you said, has been worn out since and it now needs a total make-over to establish a new school for psycho-analysis.hehehe

              • July 9, 2009 at 9:06 am

                Hehe – i agree Igsoon. Freudian libido as the axis of human personality has been outmoded long ago. Nagspider tournament sila ni Jung hehe…

                • TóTómel
                  July 9, 2009 at 9:13 am

                  and how the world gaveve too much fuzz in buying the idea of sexuality in psycho-analysis.tsk tsk. surely Freud has the best way of selling his ideas.hahaha

                  As for Jung, he didnt want to be left on the line thus he fashioned his own style.hehehe

              • July 9, 2009 at 9:18 am

                Freud was a genius of his time and this is his legacy – synthesizing dreams with the world of the unconscious. Jung banked on this, go deeper. It’s an evolution of understanding of the human personality and both should be given credits where credits are due.
                And fuzz – the whole world just did it and continue to keep doing with Michael J. hehe

  5. Onllarena
    July 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    I can’t agree more heh heh heh…good topic bro.

    Think you’d like this article I read online from the New York Times “Why the Imp in Your Brain Gets out…here is the link to the website (www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/07mind.html?_r=1&nl=health&emc=a1)

    Cheers!

    • TóTómel
      July 9, 2009 at 4:19 am

      wow very interesting information kapatid. although i stick to behavior, which by way of human understanding defines our uniqueness, as the apparent gauge of our ceratin weirdness, i definitely agree that it all happens when the brain processes all impulses to form behaviors as output. 🙂

  6. July 9, 2009 at 9:25 am

    Sige, magdung-ag pa ko Igsoon. Wa man lagi tay maid. Thanks for this exchange…weird perhaps for others, at least, they’re relevant to the post haha…

    • TóTómel
      July 10, 2009 at 4:32 am

      hahaha…the best thing we did here is to shred things into smaller angles yet still accepted our individual weirdness – a common lot that dooms the human race.hehehe.

      next time utod, ma ilonggo naman ta ah.hehehe

  7. July 10, 2009 at 4:49 am

    @CWW: Well-asked and explained Kapatid…

    “The components’ behavior approaches that of a wave. ” String theory is trying to bank on this.

    “Now, does quantum mechanics play a part in human weirdness? Logically, maybe so if one reduces the human model to a purely organic nature of atomic components.”

    I like this conditional clause, trying to hint at the deterministic model of understanding human being endowed with the power of choice, to say the least among other non-material faculties.

    From my end, i still would like to subscribe to the randomness and chanciness of nature. The priest shot in Cebu after running away from cellphone snatchers make me think so; and so innocent children killed in the Cotabato bombings. The randomness even at the subatomic level is only one evidence at least from the world of physics appears a more viable framework for understanding reality. And where does determinism stand? This is where my theological eye could chip in: random reality is not vain; it is determined under an ontological Truth and Meaning i call God. God allows chances to happen because God and phenomena are not the same. But it doesn’t mean the phenomenon of innocent killed children will be an absolute frustration. No – because everything is under this Ontological Mantle. Nothing escapes. No one escapes despite the uncertainty or randomness of phenomena.

    • TóTómel
      July 10, 2009 at 5:09 am

      Wheeww! now that is something of immaculate synthesis. 🙂

      • July 10, 2009 at 5:15 am

        Intellectual masturbation haha…

        • TóTómel
          July 10, 2009 at 7:10 am

          postulately mental ejaculation..hahaha

    • July 10, 2009 at 11:43 am

      Wow, kapatid… string theory is most of the time beyond me…

      I have touched on string theory, and I would say it is complicated… multiple dimensions, possible parallel universes, spacetime fractures, black holes… etc… I barely scratched the surface of this theory… Can’t seem to understand it… 😀 I read the wikipedia article a while ago to review… Samot! Hehehe…

      “God allows chances to happen because God and phenomena are not the same.” Nice line kapatid… 🙂

      I believe that in our world there is always a convergence of deterministic and random forces. There is still a long way to go to delineate which force has acted on a phenomena or even on human acts – free will versus law of causation. The law of universal gravitation says that bodies with finite mass interact with each other, their interaction being inversely proportional with distance. On the subatomic level, debates are still ongoing. But I believe that the debate is whether parameters are really uncertain or not…

      Let’s take for example the priest who got shot… As to why he was the one picked out by the robbers in that specific area, that may be random. But there is a determinisic reason why the priest was there at that time – he visits his sister every Monday. For the robbers, the selection of the area and the victim maybe random, but the act is deterministic. As to why the priest had to die that day, I don’t know but there is a saying in Psalm 139:16: “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”

      And I believe in your last two lines… Nothing escapes and no one escapes… 😀

      • TóTómel
        July 12, 2009 at 5:01 am

        Brother, this is truly brilliant. it really made me think deeply. if this had been polished in logical presentation, this could be one of most promising post to raise comments and to create traffic in your post.

        i dearly love physics as much as you do, but have not dwelt in it as passionate as you did in relating it to human affairs. I still hold one single premise, which i believe till now: if you stick to science, explain like a scientist while if you stick to just speculation, stick to philosophy (although i sometimes fortuitously cross the borderline); otherwise, it will be another frustrating endeavor to subdue both fields. i might be wrong in saying this, but this is my belief.

      • July 12, 2009 at 9:49 am

        “I believe that in our world there is always a convergence of deterministic and random forces.”

        I’m not into the mathematical maze of string theory or physics in general. They’re simply not my glass of tuba. What i’m most interested in are the philosophical assumptions, often denied, by scientists, and how these are comparable with plausible philosophical or theological asumptions. Totomel, even if i disagree state this anyhow with some brush of brilliance: “if you stick to science, explain like a scientist while if you stick to just speculation, stick to philosophy”. But scientists often thought they exclusively deal with facts and not with any metaphysical assumptions like meaning, purpose, design, etc. There’s no such thing as pure scientific fact or theory devoid of an iota of philosophical assumption. That is why a grand unified theory of everything is worth pursuing. I believe so. This was the Holy Grail for Einstein except that electromagnetism was almost an absolute denial to his relativity. Kapatid, yung convergence, isang philosophical imagination and string theory, as many subscribing physicists are growing, attempts to provide an answer to the failure of Einstein…

        • TóTómel
          July 13, 2009 at 4:39 am

          “There’s no such thing as pure scientific fact or theory devoid of an iota of philosophical assumption. ”

          so true brother, but it doesnt just reside on being philosophical instead moving up to verify every phase of it; it doesnt just stop there, but gradually search for scientific basis to establish itself concretely and avoids abstarct reasoning that gropes for nothing except arbitrary explanations. i have been spending with string theory for quite sometime and its explanation are all backed up by numbers and not just words. Unless you claim mathematics to be philosophical, then i have nothing to argue on it pa.heheheh. But of course i may be wrong brother.hehehe

          * Note: Everything is interpretation, says Fr. Heinz* heheheh

          • July 16, 2009 at 7:40 am

            igsoon – i do not find anything dubious in your arguments except that by the end of the day, 1+1=2 could have different meaning/values/significance depending on where you stand – if in the kitchen, could mean 2 eggs left for breakfast; if in the jeepney, a pair of 1 peso; if in the classroom, 2 questions left unanswered hehe.

            • TóTómel
              July 19, 2009 at 2:19 am

              well, i get a little problem with that…and you too 🙂

  8. AC
    July 13, 2009 at 8:00 am

    hahahaha! nawindang ako sa picture pramis! 😆

    most of my friends call me “weird” because i’m a lot different than what they are. but i just call myself unique. “you laugh because i am different. i laugh because you are all the same”

    yet your lines here say that the “uniqueness of man” is what makes him weird to others.

    ergo: weird nga ako. hahaha! 😆

    anyway, panghahawakan ko na lang yang linya mo.. “it is this weirdness that colors this world beautifully.”

    after all, makulay na makulay naman ang aking buhay… at isinasama ko sila sa aking kaweirdohan para naman di dull ang life nila. tama? 😉

    • TóTómel
      July 14, 2009 at 2:08 am

      hahaha….Tama. weirdo ka ngang talaga.hehehe

  9. January 7, 2010 at 11:09 pm

    that picture is really gross!!!!! o and i didnt bother actually reading the writing try to add a little hook to it not to say the picture wasnt enough of a hook but good job-wherd u get that picture its famous on the webs u know-type in weird and go to google images…..thats how i found this site pretty cool…well cool

    ok toodles have a good day

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: