Of Yerka, and Nietzsche, and the soul.

(This isn't what I planned. It just kind of happened.)

I just wanted to say that I think Nietzsche was on to something.

My copy of Mind Fields arrived the other day so I've been getting lost on the world of Jacek Yerka. Beautiful, poignant and fun, all kind of at the same time. I don't really like to play favourites, but if I had to look at Yerka's work all day, I don't think I would mind too much.

I was asked if I believed in ghosts. I said not. I love the romanticism of believing that loved ones are still watching over us, and can cross from some sort of 'other world' and in to ours. But I don't believe that. They died and their body stopped and what remains is now in the ground and they are gone forever.

As far as I'm concerned a ghost or spirit or paranormal being, or whatever word you want to use is the 'embodiment' of a person's soul. Their physical body is dead, but their soul is still alive and active.

I don't believe in ghosts because I'm not convinced that anyone has a soul. I'm not convinced that there is such as thing as a human soul. We're all just a collection of chemicals and we do the things we do and act the way we act because of reactions to outside stimuli.

Often people ask how can there be a 'God' if bad things still happen. The simple answer is that there is no God. And there is no such thing as a soul. Face it, people are basically selfish fucks. And it's disgusting.

Organised religion has never really done anything for me - not that it's a bad thing. If it can give someone strength and happiness through their faith that can only be good. Moral values are also excellent and should be encouraged. It's just I guess my faith is placed somewhere else. I have faith in the systems and mechanics of things. Everything is cause and effect, well almost all cause and effect. There's other stuff in there too, stuff like personal traits, personal opinions and attitudes, but that gets mixed in with the cause and effect.

I react a certain way because of a mix of chemicals, or an imbalance thereof, in my brain. You react the way you do because of a different mix or imbalance of chemicals. The cause may be the same both times, but the effect can be totally different. It's just a system. You put a stimuli in, add in a bunch of elements unique to the individual and you get a personal outcome. There's something reassuring about systems. They explain things and they offer an insight in to what is happening and why it is happening. And that is good. It lets you plan. Planning is also good.

I fall somewhere between atheist and agnostic, which is a difficult balancing act because I'm inclined to argue that the thing I'm pondering about doesn't actually exist in the first place. And it's impossible to ponder what doesn't exist, so surely atheist and agnostic are positions that are mutually exclusive?

BUT - can things exist just for one person? I have a lot of thoughts, and I'm the only one to experience them first hand (although perhaps by reading this someone is getting a glimpse at what my thoughts might have been, tinged with their own personal interpretations...) anyway, I'm the only one to experience them first hand. So does that mean in the eyes of everyone else they don't exist? They certainly exist for me and they are certainly real for me. So if you believe in some sort of supreme being, does that mean that it is real for you, even if it isn't real for me. I think it does.

So place your faith wherever you like. I'm not going to argue about whether that is right or wrong, because there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong. There is only right for you, or wrong for you. So the human soul doesn't exist for me, but if it does for you then we don't have to fight.

Maybe you just have more faith in people than I do.