Life as a board game.

This last Saturday I was cooking maggy in Wada 1 common room and, when I thought it would be a boring night, I saw a bunch of coming to play a table game at the middle of the room. All of them seemed to be very concentrated on it as if was something really serious. I went to see what was what mysterious and malefic game they were playing. They told me that the name of the game was ‘LIFE’. LIFE?! I said expecting for someone to ‘correct me’. Yes! Life, see you start as a citizen, who by the way is studying in college, of a city. Every time that you turn the roulette with number, you have to move as many spaces as it says and then read out what does your new position says. For example, if you are in the beginning and you need to move 10 steps until reach a spot which says that you are going to marry then you may get 5000 dollars from each of the other players. OH YEAH SORRY! I forgot to mention that this game pretends to make all its players to go to different stages of life. For example, they start supposing that their character (or should I say a kind of alter ego created by these kind of games?) is still on college so it needs to borrow some money from the bank to buy books, then, after 5 steps ahead , it graduates. Then he gets a job (from which he can be fired but, when this happens the player has to take a ‘profession card’ saying which job it is going to do next). After that it starts dating someone! And then it gets married and has twins! SO WONDERFUL ISN´T IT? Then, I started to think that this game is actually focused on entertain children and teenagers. However, it is a good idea to give them this idea of life being a table game? May be some people might say that these kind of games are better than violent video games. Well… at least those video games are quite realistic, violent yes but still more realistic that ‘LIFE’. For example, is it really possible for a poor unemployed man/woman with 4 children to pick up a card and see what job s/he is going to do next? Or is it useful for them to play a game where they have to marry without being able to divorce because I mean all the married people live a happy life! To think that every time they have children they will get money from the rest of the people to support them? This kind of games seem to be a kind of indulge to life. Does it, perhaps, represent a potential self deception to reality? It was funny to see how the game itself was meant to be politically correct. For example, one of the cards says that the player has to donate money to charity of to pay his/her taxes. It does not involve religion, it does not even specify if the player has to be in a straight or gay marriage! Those kinds of games also give the freedom for their players to ‘start’ a ‘new life’. For example, they can go to jail and get out of it just by paying 100 dollars without having any other consequence. It gives the freedom to play with life situations. Then, I was thinking that actually this life style proposed by this game is not bad at all. I thought that it was even better than my life. Who does not wants to get 5000 dollars for marring?

Here it is, you asked for my religion so...

Once I was thinking that if I would like to know the religion of some one I need to ask for the religion of his/her family. Normally the students respond ‘I do not believe in religion or I am atheist.’ It is interesting how people change their conception of religion once they come here.

For example, I remember that at the beginning of my first year I was reading a lot about existentialism, even in Spanish I was reading Albert Camus (who declares himself no existentialistic). I started to think that there was as a kind of conspiracy among the UWC colleges to make us lost our religion….

It is very easy to find reasons and explain the existence of God. For example, something that we are not able to explain we can just say that it is God’s creation or God’s will. However, it is very difficult to explain that God does not exist. Because this will lead us to more and more question that are very difficult to explain trough reasonable explanations. For instance, I proudly declare my self as a hypocritical Christian because I follow my religion only when it is convenient for me to do it.    And I think that is what happens with almost every one. We are not able to find an answer for every thing and the easiest thing that we can do it is to blame or to present metaphysical phenomenon as responsible instead. 

   However, I wander if when a student tells me to be atheist of agnostics s/he is doing it because s/he considers him/her self like that or just because they think that not believing something is cool. Yeah… that can be an excuse…  There also cases where people belief and worship a religion just because they were raised like that (and I am afraid to say that was my case and I guess that thee case of almost every one as well). I know that it does not sound true but religion sometimes plays a very important part in the life of an individual and I think that it is even quite unfair if this depends upon what was impose to him/her.

One day I was in classes and some one said that his personality was in a large expense shaped by his religion. I wander if that person would be different if his religion will be another.

Sometimes I encounter with people who find in their religion a reason for their life. I known Nietzsche would be suffering or laughing by these stories. But the thing is that I do not find it wrong. I mean we believe a lot of stuff to make our life meaningful any ways, for example, believing that education will make me a better person or that by being a good student I will get a very good job and a handsome husband. I think that I do not have enough confidence to stop finding excuses or solutions to my problems by believing something that it may do not exit.

I think that to believe in a religion is something more as a necessity. We like to feel that there is something else controlling the world or taking care f us. Sometimes I feel that we give up our responsibility so easy.

Searching for my IA...

I was searching information for my philosophy IA when I found this:

According to the philosopher Jacques Derrida if there is a possibility that the language, expressions and performative utterance get repeated by anyone over and over again, this includes the possibility of their deviation from their ´intensive meaning in linguistic´. For example, given that the word `mother` has being use extensively since its creation, there is a possibility that it lost its initial meaning as a word. This possibility is call iterability.

 The major quality of this iterability is that language is decentralized. Language does not necessary consist in the communication of true and false statements. It rather undergoes transformation with every repetition of its different configurations. For example, Judith Butler uses this idea to say that the performative of our sexual identity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability which also involves a regularized and constrained repetition of norms. However, this repetition is not done by the person rather this repetition is what enables the person and constitutes its temporal condition for its sexual identity. Therefore, iterability implies that this performance is not a single act but a `ritualized` production under the forces of prohibition and controlling norms given by the understanding of the ´intensive meaning´ of that performance at the moment that it is exercised. That means that what we understand from something is different from its real meaning. Does it sound absurd? May be not absurd not should I say wear? To think that what we thing of something is not necessary what its original meaning was? Of course, this explains many things as for example the different conceptions of the same thing that can exit in different cultures. However, it will be almost quite impossible to demonstrate what the ‘real’ meaning of something is.

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.