I was asked what I see when I look at people doing things, living their lifes, how things are for them. I think sometimes it's forgotten, or brushed aside as irrelevant or for later, the cosmic context in which we live. The simple miracle to be alive, against all possible odds (as physicists like to point out the specificity of conditions that make a universe and every cosmological bodies and their relations possible). And the improbability to be awake in each our own unique creaturely bodies and minds (and some say soul) is rarely discussed directly in theoretical discourse as to make each exposition meaningful. Scientists say life evolved from a single cell out of one bubble (and there were many) that happened to contain materials for DNA and with somehow also a semi-permeable membrane. It all started there. The improbability of a regular bubble attaining these forementioned characteristics - it is against astronomical odds. That biological life prospered into the extreme diversity of creatures is bewildering (which doesn't mean it is not true). The world we live in is, for lack of a better word, Eden itself.  It is paradise on earth - life's many forms have diversified and prospered - it happened here, on earth. Evolution, to nay sayers, seems too simple a mechanism; it is not a mechanism at all. It is a phenomenon of such miraculous outcome. And then there is the human being. Some think human beings are the steward of life, others think humans are meant to rule this world. Still others believe everything here is made with the express purpose to be manifold resources just so the human lives.  The human being indeed began simply, almost like animals, foraging and hunting other living organisms for sustenance ; but somewhere in time, began to differentiate itself from other life forms. The human being made ties with other human beings, for practical purposes and maybe not so practical purposes (when practice has to do with survival). Human beings made art, imprinting onto the world the impressions he or she had of that world. There is something to be said about this, but it may be a digression to the discussion at hand. When societies began to form, human relationships became more complex. The flourishing of social contexts happened and specialization occurred. When we look at our story from this cartoon perspective of what had to have transpired, in many places and many times, and look at ourselves and what we have here now, it becomes obvious that the specific beliefs, the specific activities, the specific outlook, the specific social network, they are in a state of being created and fostered. There is meaning everywhere, meaning fostered and nurtured and developed out of humankind's time on this rare oasis we call earth. The human being is continually open to meaning. Everything a human being does or involves himself or herself in are constructs in history.  What this meaning is in context of the great universe we now know we inhabit perhaps we do not know. (Though Carl Sagan's famous line regarding this question is "We are made of stardust. We are here so that the universe may know itself.")  I think when I look outside myself, I see difference, but this difference is not at the essence of what transpires. That we live in societies is no doubt absolutely true, but the involvement of each person in the multitude of things (now recognized as historical) is the testament of celebration. Perhaps I err earlier in saying the cosmic context is not beheld in regard; certainly, ethics and morality, methods of organization and dissent, theories regarding art and culture, all these and more implies the cosmic context. If this that works imply the cosmic and historical context, then, oh my, wonderment at the miraculous is everywhere. This life, or these lives, we are celebrating our improbable existence in the here and now, full of emotions and awe transformed to every interesting and mundane words said and action taken.

 I've been intrigued by the notion of tabula rasa. It seems to me that a blank slate is an essence to science. Bits of information comes to light from each person in the community from rigorous investigation.  At any time, old bits of information called knowledge could be turned away as false due to new discoveries; at the same time, other old bits that may have missed an audience could re-emerge and strike harmony with new bits to circulate and run wild amongst an audience that are receptive. That these events are commonplace and occur frequently in scientific research means that amongst continuous activities by many people, these activities that produce the bits of information, are always premised upon the open nature of inquiry. A sense of the blank slate does not dismiss what truth value may be discovered and attributed to a proposition; rather, but rather determine the potentiality of any bit produced and circulated in what is the process.toward truth. Effort is made in every case to draw upon what we have accepted as with truth value, ie. the collecting of precedents from everywhere. The nature of precedents being accepted as with truth value and support the current proposition involves gathering knowledge already established as such. Yet, there is a fluidity in the ground determined in each case of seeking a valid proposition, ie. what has been collected to be bases and premises, this ground which is comprised of many bits; and note, as before stated, one or some of such bits collected to support a proposition, they are not a priori of absolute validity.  In managing the support of the desired proposition, or hypothesis, when it comes to supporting the conjecture, there is dynamics in deeper review of the collected bits. Are they truthfully valid, as far as a scientist can know and be satisfied with the outcome.  Relevance is a way to determine whether bits could stand on its own and indeed even support whatever conjecture an scientist is poised to make.  But that negotiation upon bits whose evaluation cam be dynamic, meaning there are literally fields of data concerning each bit, where discordant info could be put aside but not set aside forever by one scientist, yet remains available for uptake by another, or possibly many others. In this sense of these bits, which are technically available to another scientist who will have to make a judgment for himself or herself as to what is the state of bit regarding truth value and relevance. No bit can die a sudden death, because it is not known whether the bit contains matters that could include a legitimate  insight or in some other ways containing points and observations that could be validated within a different context or from a different vantage point. Herein lies the tabula rasa. The blank state does not imply there is no object. Many elements are in play.  Quite to the contrary to the first glance, the blank state regards here a state of mind.whose contents are comprised of many dynamic bits which are of uncertain (or better yet, undetermined) truth value. In each case, knowledge is achieved by consensus over a dynamic but limited review of sources (all those summoned bits) and their harmony with what is generally known. There is subjectivity in the review process.  But what I want to shed light on is that the manner of which science progresses (toward many outcomes that wish to be established as knowledge - the processes and the elements in each case are requiring the sensibilities of a beginning mind.  Not allowing your preconceptions rule the lens through which you see, but always starting over by being without presumption of the truth value of anything. Perhaps this, what I have described her, is an ideal way that is not quite the case in practice. Certainly, the way that science is practiced there has to be some basis for assumption that something is true, for otherwise we could never start. But the potential this social and informationistic arrangement contain an ideal method.  Questioning every bit of information, some already established as knowledge, seems in practice to be very tedious; there needs always be some presupposed ground upon which to conjecture. But that in essence science in its perfect form carries the ideal of tabula rasa; it gives rise to a mode of working that could produce genuine meaning in an always open inquiry.

 But my new life. Where did it began? I remember a continuum in which was interspersed with momentary leaps into the questions. They are like, what am I. What is this world? I guess a moment of clarity during my time at Cornell was reading Heidegger's The The Age of the World Picture. It is a vast sweep by genius. That he wrote this is the age when the purpose is the set forth each own vision or idea or even what we would call today products or networks is amazing. To set forth as individuals can as individuals, or is it as individuals in a society? For me, the insight may sound obvious, but reading that to set forth one's own produced in me a revelatory moment. I wanted to dwell on this thought, which is amazing to me in every way.  After I had read and understood the article, something in me had changed. It's funny how genius can articulate into words thoughts that elude a constructed mind, wipes clean preconceived notions I didn't even know I had. For it is at once a very simple thing and a very complicated thing. Perhaps he had meant as societies become democratic, as capitalism becomes the ruling order of the day, as science reveals en mass minute bits of information that in some grew, while others become obsolete, that in all these conditions and more, the distinction of being an individual and being a member of a community is at once more distinctly drawn and at once becoming more fluid.  Perhaps all these things and even more than I could find in my mind right now. What got me was the simplicity of the structure of his postulation. Who is this individual? To what extent is included as the community? What preconceptions does this individudal have? In what context does the individual set forth? Am I an individual? I am exceedingly ignorant, and this I know, but what else, what other information have I been exposed to, that I never seriously considered and transformed into knowledge. Academic success is a simple thing, though it often becomes a marker of intelligence, of security, of ability, but there are so many way to cheat the system and appear all those things and in truth, I am master of none. It was a continuous information flow, which I absorbed on the short term and put back out as answers to questions on tests and essays to problems. Could I apprehend the meaning - have I allowed the meaning to change me, to transform what I see and understand? These questions then ballooning in my mind, surely, blew my mind, as I find no point of view to rest upon, there were no opportunities to dwell, to transform into meaning in my very own life. That semester I failed to supply a paper to a professor who had been supportive and generous in the years before - I knew, at first reluctantly and then later with conviction, I had nothing for a premise because, I later realized, I was not myself.

 I have left a past behind to start a new life. My new life starts with me. I am tired of starting from other people's expectations, making goals and even achieving them for the accolades and acceptance of those around me. I came to the least likely place to encounter friends and family. My psychological makeup is in such a way I had always presumed other people's responses and their expectations are more valid than mine. I had gone a way along this way, sidelining the things I feel are important to bring to fruits results that neither please me nor displease me, even though I am perfectly guilty to yearn for people's responses. How their opinions would become my life's focus I don't really know. I thought in paving a route to academic success would lead me somewhere in life. My parents, that was all they demanded from me. Going to Cornell, studying architecture, something I have never had an interest in, seemed like the correct path. My parents were immensely pleased. But one more time, I could develop no interest in creating architecture in the way they were teaching it. Although now an actual interest of mine, architecture is, I think I would not find happiness in this way.  Success and happiness are not the same thing; sometimes one is confused with the other. Happiness is starting with myself and slowly and deliberately collect fragments in pieces what interests me and makes me feel elated. It's kinda like love, I boldly conjecture. In your heart you know. At Cornell, I switched out of architecture, though still immersed in friends' projects which I looked upon with admiration and which sometimes called me to be in an honored position as critic. I switched to the School of Arts and Sciences, expecting to explore and find something that empassioned me. Much was interesting, and I carried a full curriculum every semester, sometimes working two jobs, and partied. Partying was an expression of seeking happiness in the other - I was fully aware that it was not to last and may carry detrimental effects. I had not told any of this to my Grandma, but she still insightfully remarked, but you graduated. I didn't realize it was an achievement because my heart was not in it. Beside the partying, which I felt was otherly and so enjoyable to be intoxicated with literal intoxicants but also social freedom. Maybe graduating was an achievement of sorts, but I felt like there are more and more boxes around me, and as I looked into the future, I saw them closing in on me. I don't want my life to be over before it began. Life, being at peace with oneself, doing something that means something to oneself, encountering people before putting up a facade, sincere even if disagreement occur, because it is one's own. There is very little time, yet life is a miracle, an extremely improbable event or phenomenon, so very precious. There is no doubt we live in societies and communities.  There are rules and conventions, but nobody has held a gun to my head and insist on how I should live. I have not been enslaved, but only by my own preconceptions.  Dare to look outside, I tell myself, can I find people who are in pursuit of the life they are seeking, but how many of these people can see beyond what they have constructed around themselves. Are they conventional lifes, repeated across well meaning folks, but have they seen beyond. We live in an informational society here anyway, the lens with which to view the world can vary: which lens are you looking through? Are there ways to see with your own naked eye, and see the universe and your living in this ever grander world in a moment's mind's eye?