Mythical Beast

As you probably already know, it is very difficult for me to make up a Mythical Beast. So I’m going to think of one…

Alright, I think I’ve got it. This beast does not have a name, yet, hopefully by the end of this entry it will. So that means we will leave the “complex idea” part until that time. The simple impressions are the following: it has long, very long brown hair all over its body. I guess it can have multiple colours based on their environment. Come to think of it, this part of the description reminds me of a Tangela, except with hair instead of vines. Oh, and my beast is much bigger, umm... maybe, let’s say like 8 feet tall, more or less. It has green tentacles coming out from beneath its fur, no wait, I think it should be called hair, not fur. Ok, so hair. So these tentacles are long but you can’t see them when this beast retracts them back beneath its hair. I don’t know how that works, maybe it raps the tentacles around its actual body or something. So it has 4 tentacles like that. The tentacles are greenish-turquoise. They are long and skinny, like maybe an inch or two or three in width, except for the tips, the ends of it of an adult form of this creature would be a foot long, more or less, which are thicker, wider and in kind of pointed at the tip, except it’s not sharp, just thinner, with maybe 8 to 10 suction cups on that part. Sounds like a squid tentacle or something. You can’t see this thing’s face, but it has one, and it can see through its hair, which isn’t hard to do, I would know. The legs took me a lot of thought, but this creature has bird legs. Talons included. These it can retract too. It’s a defensive mechanism.

I have decided on a name. This creature’s name is Polymalia. It comes from the Greek words poly, which means “many”, and malia, which means “hair”. This is the complex idea, Polymalia.

Locke’s natural rights are freedom to live, freedom of choice, and freedom to own property. These rights apply to Polymalia, and we humans have no right to take these rights away from it. We shouldn’t take away its life, the only way that'll happen is if it encounters one of its natural predators and unfortunately looses that battle. It has freedom to make its own choices, we shouldn’t take that away from it either. If it wants to run around in circles, it should run around in circles, if it wants to retract all its limbs and roll down a hill, then so be it. And freedom of property. If Polymalia wants to mark trees around its territory with its talons, then it should keep its ownership of that land, we shouldn’t take it away.

Pleasure vs. Pain

According to John Locke, there is good and there is evil. Good and evil affect us in different ways. The main ways they affect us is by either increasing or decreasing pleasure or pain. Good increases pleasure and decreases pain. Evil does the opposite, increases pain and decreases pleasure. Pleasure and pain also make other emotions depending on how one perceives the situation. Some of these emotions include love, hatred, desire, joy, sorrow, hope, fear, despair, anger and envy. Love and joy fall under pleasure. Hatred and sorrow fall under pain. Desire, I believe, is in between joy and sorrow. When you desire something, it’s not really either pleasure or pain, but once you do or do not get what you desire, it turns to joy or sorrow. Hope is when you’re in a painful situation and you look towards the good. Fear is when you’re in a pleasurable situation and you see that evil may come. Despair falls between the two: you’re not really looking for hope, but you’re not exactly fearing anything. Anger and envy are special emotions that technically fall under pain, but they have to do with another person.

I believe Locke is correct in his statements. Because going against what he says would be to say evil increases pleasure and good increases pain, but that is preposterous, unless you roll like that, but for me, Locke is right.

Even though I almost whole-heartedly agree with Locke, I disagree with him on one topic. He says that with anger, there’s a “present purpose of revenge”. You don't need to be vengeful in order to be angry.

I ...(blank)... Therefore I Am

I Live, Therefore I Am.

This statement, I believe, is very self-explanatory. I am because I live; I live therefore I am. This means that because I have been given the gift of life, I exist. This is only so because I am made of matter. I take up space and, the last time I checked, I did have some volume on me. I am here, I am tangible, and I am visible… well, visibility is an option, you can still exist if you’re under an Invisibility Cloak or cloaking devise of some sort.

I say I Live, so I exist. I do not, repeat, do not mean if something is not alive it doesn’t exist. Most of the matter in the universe is not alive, that’s a fact. There can’t be more living than nonliving things in the universe, there just wouldn’t be enough room to hold the living things. Even, say, if we humans make space stations or something like that to live in, that’s adding more to the nonliving side. If there’s going to be any argument against me that planets and stars and other stuff is alive that are considered “life-less”, then you go right on and think that. I'm just speaking of things most humans consider to not be alive. Anyway, back to what I was saying. Nonliving things can exist, and they do, unless they aren’t made of matter, not tangible, and not even there (unless there invisible). But in this blog, I speak for myself when I say “I Live, Therefore I Am.” For me, living gives me my existence in this present day. If I die, again, and actually stay dead, like dead-not-coming-back-to-life dead, then my saying would have to change, but I don’t know what that’ll be since I haven’t reached that stage of my existence.