Received trans-pacific parking ticket from Cornell yesterday. When mum asked what that was, I told her it was a notice about a newly-implemented luxury bus service between NYC and Ithaca for Cornell students. Deceit is necessity for rational compromise. What one should do is to develop deceitful strategies without moving a hair. It's ironic that the family is the first place to practice the grownups' farce, where it's supposed to be the place where you remain a kid and get shelter. Or is it that deceit in the family makes one feel guilty for being faky to other people, when one shouldn't have? It's all rather confusing. Some stuff I read off internet:

"The next time something does not go the way you wanted it to, or just when you are feeling low, ask yourself how old you are feeling. What you might find is that you are feeling like a bad little girl, a bad little boy, and that you must have done something wrong because it feels like you are being punished.
Just because it feels like you are being punished does not mean that is the Truth."

Sounds like something I'd tell Jo if I'm still talking to her. It further says emotional energy/ truths are real but not facts. Just reactions from a childish self. So it all involves stepping out of the child into the adult. What if that's prevented by your own mum?

"...the risk of freedom must be exactly proportional to its potential for good. If I have the freedom to love one person only, I have the freedom to hurt one person only. If I have the freedom to love them a little, I have the freedom to hurt them a little. If I can love them a great deal,...

I can understand why ...this as "bad management," and perhaps it would be if there were some other way of doing things. But I don't believe there is. In my view the proportionality between the possibilities of good and evil inherent in freedom is what's called a metaphysical truth. It's like the three sides of a triangle. If you have freedom, you have to have this risk." - Letters from a Skeptic

Personally I believe this is getting nowhere. There ought to be some sense in basic assumptions to begin with. Statements like "I don't believe there is" (making allowance for a personal letter) are not support for the nature of the "metaphysical truth". Arguments like the three sides of a triangle are just too random.

It's true that the perspective determines a lot of things already. I'm not reading it in any remotely Christian way. I'm reading it the scientific way, Chinese way (where brandishing of the term "love" is deemed shameful), historic way, none of which will bring me to concurrence with this writer, whom I imagine to be a thin, long-faced middle-aged American with balding top (don't ask me why) and whom I'm already beginning to dislike.