I began reading some of the E-books that I have downloaded. NO, I am not referring to the ones that are read for casual reasons such as entertainment, decalogue of emotions that must be reaffirmed by the characters, or for the purposiveness of reading because another subject is subduing the idea that from forcibly making students read, they learn as well. i am reading for the sake of trying to find out the length and depth of my understanding towards what I have been doing, debating. So for the sake of those who haven’t caught up with what I have been doing lately, yes, I have been reading about Charles Dickenson, Virginia Wolfe, and Roald Dahl (most of them just the once I have heard), and yes, I have also started reading books that sequester student friendly topics with heavy ones. By heavy ones, I am referring to those books that students taking majors in various courses make use of to further their knowledge. No, I am not reading a Biology book. As far as I am concerned, I have read a lot of Bio-related books, and the saturation of the knowledge seems to seep my very being that I find it offensive to force myself to further read another book related to Bio. Sooner or later, the necessity for me to read the bio-related books (the “drive,” as they call it, will once again surface, and maybe, by then, I will start engineering my way towards my beloved course). Where was I? As of the moment, I am reading Smart and Haldane – Atheism and Theism. The title itself is cool because it lacks the Oxford comma, which means that the subject is actually related when in fact they are opposites. We can assume that the very negation of the words “Atheism” and “Theism” already presupposes that a negative relation already exists. BUT, if we are to follow this logic, that the two poles of extreme difference are actually related, we may as well vanquish the use of the Oxford comma since in the end, we consider the extreme opposites as related to each other when in fact they are the clear opposite of each other. Yes, it may be silly since I am talking to myself while writing this and this may lead therefore to me being the only one understanding the logic behind my words, but to make it simpler, we need to visualize. In a neighborhood where one street runs from North to South, and that is composed of 5 blocks, the relation of one house to the other (either to its left or right) is called neighboring. Meaning, its close. But if each block is composed of 5 houses. Then the degree of closeness between one house to the other decreases as it we go further downstreet or upstreet. Assuming that the northernmost part of the street is the end of the world, and the other end is the southernmost part and is the other end of the world, then the 2 houses are in the maximum distance a person may travel to be still within the vicinity of the neighborhood and at the same time reach the furtherest ends of the street. If a person stays in one end of the street, then he can hardly relate with that of the other end, simply because he is very far, very distant, and very detached from the other end. Then, the relationship is very hairline, if not, it isn’t recognizable at all. Of course everything is relational, but in the end, we have to keep in mind that a certain degree is always achieved for us to find out whether our use of the word “related” is still within the just middle (mesotes) of understanding that we have, as normal human beings of course. So to say Atheism and Theism is a tough job. You have to make sure that you can fabricate the very essence of the opposition, as well as why the idea in itself is just but related. In short, Atheism, and Theism, are two ideas not far from each other. I just hope I get this much of info after reading the book.
Wow, just explaining the importance of Comma makes me realize, I’m not even done with the Introduction, yet here I am talking about the Title. Anyway, I haven’t pondered much in a while and January 7, 2013 is not a good date for me. I sucked one of my rounds and I wish that thinking about how a comma works, the degree of processing my intel about these trivial matters, would be as fluid as how I think at school. There you have it, reckless and impulsive. How did we get here again? (,)