Ring rang, your mom is calling you.

One of my roommates receives a call from her family every day. I do not have an issue with it but she talks in the room even when there is someone sleeping. I never tell her anything but every time that it happens I ask too my self why do I need to hear her private conversations? I know that she has the right to talk with who ever she wants but why IN MY ROOM. However, I cannot tell her anything because we divided our room in such way that each of us has a corner as a mini room. Therefore, what ever we do in our corner is own our business.
Mmmmm, but sound travels through waves, right? So, if she is talking in her corner, this sound will ‘travel’ into my corner. Should I then construct a wall between us to do not allow the air/smell/sound get into my OWN PERSONAL CORNER?
 Being in MUWCI I realized how much importance one gives to one’s personal space. Sometimes, I feel that we defend it as if it was the thing which gives meaning to our life. We are so obsessed with the space that belongs to us that we do not realize that the concept of personal space is sometimes an abstract concept. For example, I was in a discussion for philosophy class about what should be considered when laws are created. I mentioned that the personal space of the individuals affected by these laws should be respected. What did I mean by that? Mmm I am not sure now. Perhaps, freedom of speech? Nope, that does not really exist or, at least, it cannot be brought into practice in a community as MUWCI. Privacy? Mmmm sometimes when I am right in front of my house I can hear when someone is in the bathroom.
We do not really have a private space in our corners. For instance, when my roommates talk by receive a call in the room I could say that they are not respecting my personal space. I could even say that I am not respecting their personal space since I hear their conversations. Can I avoid that? Yes, I may can but it is very difficult thing to do. Why? Because personal space does not really exist. Is not something that is trapped in a box that we can carry with us. However, at least, I like to think that there is something that no one can take away from me, therefore, I will continue pretending that I cannot listen to my roommate’s conversations and that my corner is the sacred place in MUWCI.

Tibetan Fair. Utilitarianism Ab initio.

This last Sunday the Tibetan Club organized a kind of fair to raise awareness and collect founds. They were trying very hard to promote it by showing the things that they were selling. I remember that I wanted to contribute with their cause but I also wanted to get something from it. In he end, I was not sure if I was more happy because I helped or because I added to T- shirts to my closet.
I know that they did a great job (guys if you are reading this, well done!) and collected a lot of money. However, the way in which it was promoted made think about how utilitarian sometimes we can be.
Most of the time, we are specking something from our actions. For example, I may never start writing in a blogspot if I will not receive a grade from it. Nietzsche said that we should separate the doer from the deed, he said it in relationship with punishment and guiltiness but I bring that idea into a more materialistic and utilitarian level (assuming that it can be possible). We are waiting for an expected consequence of our actions. Any ways, is there any action which does not have a consequence? I think there is not.
A problem can be when we think that these consequences should be material. However this notion of materialism (or should I say consumerism?) helps, ironically, to found activities…

Bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, who cares?!

 I am thinking to write my philosophy IA about sexual identity. Is it interesting, and sometimes even quite absurd, that sometimes pretend to define our selves withing a single category. For example, how many words do we have to classify some one according to his/her sexuality preference, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, transvestite, transgender, transsexual, heteroflex, homoflex, (yeah and no, I am not inventing them) heterocurious, homocurious, an so on... It is ironic that to define our selves gives us a feeling of security. We pretend to know ourselves just by being able to put us into a category but sometimes we are doing the contrary.

According to Judith Butler, our sexual identity is socially constructed. I agree with her in the sense that yes, may be society makes us believe that to have a single sexual identity is the best for us. However, I think that we are the ones who classify our selves and no society in itself.

For example, some queer philosophers think that we can choose between being homosexual and heterosexual. Would not being contradictory if there is some one who says that s/he is homosexual but then that person likes some one of his/her other gender. However, s/he decides to do not do anything because s/he is gay?

As I said in one of my previous posts, people change and it is inevitable and sometimes even healthy.

Often we come with new ideas of how to put our selves into a kind of box according to the our preferences. One day I was thinking, ok who do I like. Then, after expending lot of time thinking about it, I realize that I was completely wasting my time because I might change my decision tomorrow.

I am not pretending to say that we should not try to find a single position. What I am trying to say is that we want to it we should do it because we really feel prepared and not because we think it is the best thing to do. And, if we change later on our decision, bah! it is fine! WE CHANGE! and we should know our selves enough to accept it.

Over the summer

During my two years of study in India, I stayed with different families. What was interesting was that

each family was unique. However, every time I meet each one of them for the first time I felt nervous

and scared, wandering whether I would like them. However, this was not necessary since each of them

treated me as if I was their relative. I wondered many times why they were treating me with so much

love and respect. Then, I realized that it was normal. Each family was sharing the same ideals, ambitious

as my family. All of them wanted their children to have a good education; they wanted to have family

time, to help each other. Therefore, it seemed to me that it didn’t matter if we were from another part

of the world, religion or culture; we were connected by this capacity to demonstrate love. This is

something we all have in common. After that, I regretted that I thought of them as if they were from

another planet. One should not let one’s self influenced by stereotypes. It is a question of

understanding the person besides us.

ONE. TWO. THREE. BOOM, BOOM... I AM DEAD.

It is 4 57 am and my eyes are finally hurting. However, I refuse to sleep even though I am lying on my bed as a crude sausage waiting to be cooked. I know you might do not care this but I will tell you since it may help you to understand the reason of this post. I have a friend who is going to join the army in a couple of weeks and I must say that I am afraid. I come from Costa Rica which is apparently the only country which is officially without an army. The thing that is making me write this post is that, I do not want her to be there, I do not any one to be there. I really don't but can I do anything about it? Nope, I can not and I feel so impotent. I do not understand the point of continuing with our existence if we are not even able to help the people we love. I guess people, or at least the human who is written this, is afraid of the vacuum. I understand the concept of existence and meaningful life given by Sartre but until what are the conditions in order to classify our life as meaningful. There are millions of millions of people and I am just one of them.  What would happen if we all try to do something to give our life a meaning. For example, if a life in farm, taking care of my animals and family, I never take part of any movement or group in my village but a give a good education to my children and I always help people when I can, could I say that my life worth? would my life be more efficient than the life of some one who  is always pretending to do a lot of things just for the sake of given a reason to his/her life? 

The Shock Dotrine. I do not like the word normality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSF0e6oO_tw&feature=PlayList&p=512258BC6AB06162&index=4&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL


I found this video when I was searching for a song in youtube. It talks about how Shock therapy was used by the CIA at the beginning as a strategy to control prisoners. It was used to bring them into a childlike state. Last year, when I was in Calcutta during my project week, I went to one of the Mother Teresa NGO. One day I want to a kind of open discussion with some of the volunteers and the priest of the place. He told us that the patience where receiving electro shock therapy. I asked him why and he simply said that it was to bring them in a 'normal state'. Ha! When he told me that, I had the impulse to kick him.

Why sometimes do we focus so much in trying to make someone to think or behave according to the codes of behavior? How much price does a 'mentally sick' person spends to give the impression that he or she is normal. May be the abnormal people are those focused in finding a cure for 'mental defects'.

There are people suffering just because they do not fit in the moral standard of their society. They are considered as outsiders sometimes because they do not follow the mass.

Do we have the right to coerce some one, even if it implies to inflict pain, because we think it is the best for that person? positive LIBERTY, negative LIBERTY? I do not know which one is better, if there is a bad or a good one. It was interesting, and quite funny I must say, the fact that I was discussing with one of my philosophy classmates about which was the best situation in which we could coarse some one, when should we be allowed to do it and which kind of liberty, according to Isaiah Berlin. It is not that I am too lazy to talk about positive liberty or negative liberty and I known that his argument was not only based on the necessity of pretending to have a normal state for everything in order to keep order or security in society. However, I raise this question before posting something bout it: Do we even know ourselves enough in order to make a decision upon some one?


Sorry but I think we should not unless the persons gives us his or her consent and I think we should stop finding a single patron or a single structure for every thing.