To the Introverted, Introspective Me (1/3)

For many years people made you believe you were shy. You never like a crowd, you dread noises, you don’t like being around a large group of people, and you are quiet. It takes so much time for you to warm up and open up; it takes so much time for you to think about the conversation you’ve heard that you didn’t have time to respond at the instant. You were so uncool that you couldn’t verbalize the difference between dating and hang out, because you never initiated any hang-out with more than one friend. So you felt confused when you found yourself have no trouble speaking enthusiastically from academy to philosophy to activities in public, no trouble answering questions thoroughly and sharply in class, and less nervous in performance than “less shy” people.

So your friends and family told you, “you don’t know what you really want. you need to be braver to get closer to people because you actually want attention, a lot.” but you just find out that sufficient solitude is exactly what you want and enjoy. You don’t like small talk, you don’t like interacting for the sake of interacting; it drains you and makes you anxious.

You talk slowly and talk the best in one-on-one conversation not because you’re dumb, not because you’re afraid, but because you think about deeper meanings and try to understand, try to clarify your thoughts so that you can provide a meaningful argument. Sometimes you hesitate to say what is in your mind not because you are afraid of judgment, not because you are afraid of revealing yourself, but because you don’t think it makes sense, you don’t think it’s true because you know there’re things you tend to judge before knowing, because you don’t think it’s appropriate for you to ask or that something it’s too easy for you to say that it doesn’t help the receptor.

You don’t like dumping emotional trash on others or inconveniencing anyone without being certain it would do any good, you like to respect personal boundaries, you want to be independent so you process your feelings and questions on your own. You are just introvert.

    Then why did you always think you were shy? Because you have indeed become shy, even not so much as what others think. Because they make you believe that introvert people have a problem.

You became shy because your friends and your family told you that you need to fit in, you became shy because they wanted you to joke, laugh and be loud, and entertained others with a silver tongue; they told you, you need a larger group of friends just like everyone else, so you tried to become who you aren’t. And people are smart: they could tell if you are pretending, and you would always look bad for pretending. So people indeed laughed at you.

You became self-conscious and worried about others’ opinion, you began hesitating in conversation not because you wanted to speak helpfully or fairly, but because you didn’t want to look dumb. Why? Because society valued out-going, sociable, fast-talking-and-thinking people more; because you, as an introvert, is naturally considered more ordinary and declined for opportunities, so you needed to work extra to show yourself. Yet you never want to pretend to be someone better than or different from you. You never wanted to be the popular kid. You knew that you won’t have many times to be heard or to be seen, so you really wanted to make sure you were seen as who you really are.

But you really don’t have to be either loud or shy. You are introvert.


The End or the Means: personal development and bettering the world

To me, it’s equally important to make the world a better place and to enlighten, improve, become, and fulfill myself, and they are intersected. My mom, however, believes that the knowledge of truth and good ideas have no value unless they result in actions: input is just the means to output, and mind must have a function.

If people say to me: be careful not to be selfish and don’t be the kind of person who wants to go to Harvard to make fortune for themselves without paying back to society, I would have to defend myself and the term “living for oneself”. No, doing things at the best interest of my own being doesn’t mean choosing the easiest, sniffling at responsibilities, and considering my every whim the priority. Exactly the opposite—I’m an atheist, but I would say that it is the desire and hunger of souls, the void of mind and heart instead of material that mankind, possibly the only species aware of our own existence, attempt to fill at the same time as we take actions and interactions. So self-becoming or fulfillment actually means: forever striving to be a better person.

Moreover, I would say: the belief that “value lies in existence, being, or growth itself” is the root of real altruism, because life is considered no the means, but the end; so would we see the value in every other human being, regardless of what functions they serve, which greatly reduces the chance of discrimination: status doesn’t matter, occupations doesn’t matter, how they are different from us or unrelatable to us doesn’t matter. Everybody then has a world, a life, and a mind of their own, so the being of an orphan baby worth as much as the First Lady, the being of one of the thousand workers worth as much as the most prominent administrator, and the life of a stranger—even a homeless one—you meet in streets worth as much as your wife. 

Nobody then gets the right to climb to the top on the bodies of others, nobody then gets to justifiably oppress the more disadvantageous, and nobody—the accidentally crippled, the old, the poor who aren’t lazy—who are powerless or less functioning because of fault that isn’t theirs, should be compromised for the majority. Isn’t the admiration of individuals, or individuality, the root of every societal progressive reform—make “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” available for those whose goodness isn’t manifest, whose strengths we don’t  utilize, whose beliefs or interests we don’t share; and, make fair and equitable treatment not a privilege, but a right, for every being. 

Thus, regarding knowledge, I really hold that wisdom has something to do with morality: if I really know about humanity—what we have in common and how we become all distinct—I would understand and respect what they deserve, and I would certainly appreciate another human being enough to never do anything that intervenes with their being.

I acknowledge my existence prior to any labels, any practical values in use, and so would I acknowledge your existence, your feelings, your well-being, your voices, and rights.

Could the world be a better place if individuals are considered merely instruments? What is the point of a better world, then? Who is it for?

If the worth of individuals must be realized through influencing the world, then most people aren’t worth that much. Then how do ordinary people deserve to coexist in as good a world as the elites who work to write history?


No man exists independently of his actions & consequences—“The Stranger” and Existentialism

Summary: this philosophy paper absorbs the ideas of Sartre and connects it to Camus’ “The Stranger’: 1. There isn’t predefined human nature besides what man constitutes, and there aren’t principles that circumstances have to abide to, which leaves man has no control over anything except his own will. 2. Man has absolute freedom over his actions and being, as well as full responsibility for his choices and the corresponding consequences. 3.  It doesn’t mean that we can do whatever we want, because other people’s distinct being, feelings, and experiences are as real and valuable as ours.

The Stranger by Camus tells the story of a shipping clerk, Meursault, a detached man who lives an ordinary life and doesn’t follow social expectations. He attends the funeral of his mother, whom was sent to group home by him for their good, then makes out with a new girlfriend, Marie, the next day, befriends a pimp, Raymond, goes to the beach under Raymond’s invitation, confronted by some Arabs, one of whose sister is Raymond’s girlfriend who cheats on him and is harshly punished for this, eventually kills one man, and is sentenced for death after a trial where people judge his character more than his crime. This novel suggests the absence of superior principles that things and man must abide by and thus the absolute freedom of man over his actions and being, as well as the inevitable responsibility man has over his choices and the corresponding consequences, and further believes that the authenticity of other man’s beings and experiences and susceptibility to harm is what makes morality exist.

The underlying argument of this novel is that man always have a choice, for there aren’t any independent conception of any incidents or persons besides the reality that the persons involved are committed to. Meursault’s way of thinking reflects the public mind’s refusal to acknowledge or value the freedom of his actions. For the majority of the novel, Meursault seems to take whatever actions the surrounding events or people push him towards and don’t bother to see any other way: he goes to work every day, thinking it boring but does it as a routine; he passively agrees to be Raymond’s accomplice in his underground affairs because he feels like doing it—or at least neither disgusted, bored, or perplexed by the idea—and passively take part in bodily committing violence, which eventually leads to his crime, because that’s what Raymond asks from him as a friend. He plays along and makes the convenient choices because he “doesn’t see a reason not to”, and detaches himself from the responsibility of his actions; he thinks there are certain laws of how things would go, and the “things” include his own inner feelings.

     It seems that Meursault would definitely follow Raymond even to hell because that’s what the depth of his friendship naturally pushes him too. This justification, however, implies a confusion of causal relations: the nature or depth of sentiments are constituted, fashioned and defined as certain actions are taken. Only his actions could put a value to his friendship, so the value of friendship shouldn’t be a reason for his actions. The novel’s narration of Meursault’s other similar psychological processes proves and reinforces the above point, that the nature or attributes of a man isn’t what constitutes actions, and could only constitute certain actions, but is rather constantly constituted by actions.

       Throughout the book, just while Meursault could’ve had many chances to redefine his friendship with Raymond, he also has many chances to alter and strengthen his bonds with other people simply by allowing himself to act out what he feels. He could have shown interest in Marie’s plan for later after they part ways after a date-walk, which he is interested in, but instead feels like it’s not his place to ask; he could have shaken hands with the examining magistrate who questioned him after he found that man reasonable and pleasant, but he refrains from acting out such respect because, again, that’s out of place for a criminal. Assuming any underlying features of himself to prevent himself from being himself—if we describe what Meursault is doing as such, the implied idea that there is more of what one could be other than his exhibited nature just couldn’t be true because nature, by definition, means what one essentially and consistently is. So the resolution to this contradiction is: there isn’t any nature of human or a person, at least not a fixed and predetermined one. It doesn’t mean that man couldn’t be defined; instead, man is continuously self-defined by his actions. Man isn’t an actor of a script to watch his role being unfolded in actions; man exists and becomes as his actions.

     In objection to the conventional wisdom that circumstances limit the possibilities of actions, this novel points out that regardless of what the circumstances are, no action is impossible. At the end of Part 1, Meursault sort of attains the realization of the freedom he possesses: when he meets the Arab again at the beach, he realizes that if only for safety case, he could simply turn around, and while partly blames the heat for driving him to do so—the heat actually means more than the literal—he also admits that doing whatever isn’t gonna change that, because the literal heat would remain, and the implication of heat. Shooting is not necessary for the circumstances, especially considering the complication of possibilities of the circumstances—Meursault doesn’t have control over anything besides himself and couldn’t predict any outcomes, and since he possibly couldn’t know how his actions would serve the circumstances or at least knows that the world around wouldn’t bend to his will, what he has and only has control over is his own will to act.

       As what Meursault realizes: it’s his choice whether to shoot or not to shoot. When he finally shoots, it’s him making the decision for a reason he chooses: he doesn’t like the transpassing of other human beings into his solitude, and he actualizes this feeling by eliminating that human being. Just like there isn’t a superior conception of what a person’s being is, there aren’t undefiable principles that incidents are deemed to follow. It means (1) man has the freedom to act upon his will; (2) the only thing he could rely on is his will, for he has no control over anything external, and should disinterest himself from possibilities beyond the sole physical possibilities of carrying out his actions. That man’s being is defined by actions and the being prevails over any preconception and external conditions, leads to the conclusion which Meursault attains at the end of the novel and of his life, “I had lived my life one way and I could have lived it another”. Man, and only man, creates his own life and self; man must and could only possibly live up to his own will and be true to himself.

       Man is condemned to freedom, but it doesn’t mean he could do whatever he wants: because he is also condemned to responsibility for the consequences of his actions, be it his future or others’, because now there aren’t predetermined ways that life would certainly follow and man’s actions are what makes real differences.

      Meursault represents the kind of bad faiths that nothing matters because he’s and some of us have seen the irrelevant nature of the laws written by society, and then there’s nothing in place to guide right and wrong. His realization makes him understand that what most of the people do and follow is stupid—crying and refraining from sex for someone who’s dead and couldn’t know anything, etc., which contributes to his mistake of alienating himself from others. He doesn’t genuinely connect with others: in his mother’s funeral, he points out he doesn’t feel his mother’s friends “really exist” because he doesn’t know them, and he feels annoyed at the women crying out of their sadness, completely dismissing what they are going through; he sees Marie as only one of the woman, but never loves her for her Marieness.

     A more obvious demonstration of this kind of objectification of other people is the trial of Meursault’s murder: when the prosecutor indignantly judges Meursault to be someone who “doesn’t have a soul and nothing human, not one of the moral principles within his reach” and therefore justice, instead of mercy, is what he deserves, he considers Meursault simply something foreign to the society he lives in and thus the threat, the enemy, but he forgets that Meursault is a living human being who has a mind, a life, and a world of his own. He and the jurors don’t bother to really know Meursault; most of them hear Meursault’s strangeness and then are not listening to Meursault’s friends’ description of his virtues. This is the mindset of the whole trial: it isn’t about the person whose fate it is concerned, but rather about themes and slogans—they block out the most direct side, the saddest fact about this decision, which is that the patient is to die after guillotine and there would be “no chance at all, absolutely none”, and instead they’re preserving justice, they’re preserving their society, and that it’s a painful yet honorable duty for them, instead of a much more painful loss, “an open-and-shut case, a fixed arrangement, a tacit agreement that there was no question of going back on” of the man standing and breathing right before them at this moment! Cruelty takes place not necessarily because of the sadistic intent to harm and destroy, but because of thoughtlessness: because people don’t see that others’ lives and feelings are as real as their own; because they turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions as long as they are free of consequences.

     In abandonment of superior commandments, what tells right from wrong would be whether harm is inflicted on other living human beings. The authentic ground of morality is the equal authenticity of others’ pleasure, pain, consciousness, and being as one’s own. The key is to care and see: regarding others as no means, but the end in itself. Meursault doesn’t like cops and thus won’t listen to them telling him that he shouldn’t write a letter for luring Raymond’s girlfriend to have sex with him and receive her beating at the last minute, but if he thinks about that it’s not only about him doing a favor for and not upsetting his friend, but more directly about a woman being tortured and her heart being broken, and if he sees the woman as a living, thinking, and feeling being of her own instead of a target of Raymond’s dirty trick, a dirty trick that he takes part in, he would see a reason not to.

     In the last several paragraphs of the novel, Meursault feels the impending death to be very real and contemplates the heaviness of killing—because it would be him being killed. And he concludes, “Salamano’s dog was worth just as much as his wife.” He calls others as privileged and condemned as him and thus his brother. He feels sympathy and empathy, because this time he isn’t free of consequences any more and he, not anyone else, would suffer, and that’s how he understands that others aren’t that different from him: all of the human beings have life and choices and feelings and sufferings, and what they each go through are equally real as one another’s and his. Furthermore, just as what Sartre says in his speech Existentialism is Humanism, if man defines and becomes himself through actions and he is up to be faithful to his own will, every action he makes would be what he thinks to be the best in terms of what a man could be. By committing oneself to certain activities, such as attending a party or getting married and having children, one chooses that it is the best thing to do as man, and thus decide that it is the best thing for everyone else to do, too: by committing himself to an action, he defines what it means to be man, which applies to every man.

    Thus, the humanistic approach to morality would be: by recognizing that we are each one of the man race who strive together to define ourselves and whose respective actions have consequences on others, for an action to be right by anyone, it must be right by everyone.

Con Incest, Fetishism, dog meat—survey report on answers to Heidt’s intense immoral-or-not questions

Intense Question Review:1. consensual incest between adult brothers, kept as a secret, and they remain sibling relationship—morally wrong, or not?

2. a family dog gets crushed by a car and dies. the family has no planned dinner so they eat the dog’s body (not for survival), and feel happy—morally wrong, or not?

3. cleaning a toilet with your country’s flag while you have nothing else to clean it with—morally wrong?

4. having sex with chicken meat brought from grocery store—morally wrong?

Main Arguments & elements of morality and mind involved (Continued)

ranked from totally against to moderate to totally accepting

Argument 2: it is wrong because it is disgusting—purity

This is the most interesting argument and makes me think of something. There are some psychological theories suggest that gut feelings play a larger role than logic in moral judgment, especially when it comes to non-factual, controversial topics. Because of the fact that siblings grow up together and see everything of each other and are taught not to love each other in that way, incest is shocking and gross; toilet is dirty, and therefore cleaning the toilet with a flag is gross; having sex with some food is definitely disgusting.

I don’t 100% believe in it, or I don’t want to believe in it, but I have to agree that gut feelings at least play some roles, especially at the instant, without intentional self-composure and emphasis on the rational. 

We tend to deprive those who we are disgusted by, and our disgust itself, of moral agency, of the connections to consequences, or of the connections to goodness. 

For example, panda and pig. If “thou shalt not kill” is the truth, then killing panda is equally wrong as killing pig. And what is the logic behind we favoring panda? Because panda have a more enriching spiritual world than pig? I doubt so. Because panda is more kind-hearted than pig? Not sure. Because panda is more vulnerable than pig? Everything is equally vulnerable before death.

Why do we love panda while we eat pigs? Because panda is cute, but pig is disgusting.

When it comes to people, we tend to think those who disgust us less than our equal, and therefore the principles that apply to us, the criteria of analysis and judgment that we are measured by, the fairness and rights reserved for us, have nothing to do with them at all.If you want to totally exterminate a group of people, label them disgusting or gross. This is enough to make others ignore what other qualities they have and the individualities of each, at least at the moment.

Argument 3 (from most people): it is bad and unnatural because it certainly brings harm—purity & harm & authority

This is mostly against the incest and flag question. For the first question, these people are against consensual incest because of the harmful results, they assume, would have on both parties, and they don’t believethat once sex has taken place, their sibling relationship could be unadulterated. In the flag case, these people see significant, concrete, yet the intangible meaning of the flag, the embodiment of a sentiment that is critical to the sense of connection with one’s society, and therefore consider the contamination of the flag an actual harmon the country and the people of the country’s mentality.

These people believe that there are certain meanings inherent in certain things, and their moral principle involves preserving these fundamental meanings. They believe that once the nature of something is twisted, the whole thing would go wrong and certainly inflict harm: because the natural state of things is always at people’s best interests.

On the other hand, the whole definition of naturality also has a lot to do with the environment, with social conventions that are entrenched in us. Just like the people who hold the “definitely wrong” argument, their detest of impurity and vision of inevitable harmful consequences are also partly driven by the cultural values that are not necessarily the essence of our spirits, but still somehow developing out of and conceived of the essence; the things that don’t necessarily make us who we are today, but either come along with our becoming or consolidate our knowledge of this becoming, the legacy of our history.

At first, incest is prohibited due to biological concerns. Animals have developed physical functions to prevent inbreeding for survival, too. But now we’ve evolved, both biologically and psychologically, and family dynamics have become the way they are; even if the birth defect might be conquered in the future, even if same-sex love is not a taboo anymore and couldn’t breed, it’s easy to find incest unacceptable. And true, once the laws are changed, the relations of interests within the family could be changed, which might give way to abuse of power or manipulation of kinship. 

random thoughts after reading Sartre’s ​existentialism speech

I always thought I am lucky to go through what I’ve been gone through. Actually, I am not only lucky. I learned because I personally willed myself to, because I wanted to grow, because of my own virtue.

I always wondered maybe I should be grateful for the harm done to me, for they made me grow, reminded me of the significance of kindness and thoughtfulness, but on the other hand, I know that I would do everything to prevent myself from doing those harm to others. So I was in the dilemma: forgive the bad memories, or forget the good takeaway. Maybe I don’t need to forgive in order to acknowledge the lessons. Even with the same kinds of environment, there are plenty of conclusions that I could have chosen to draw and plenty of paths that I could have chosen to take from that place. But I chose the one I am now.

I’m not grateful for those who harm me. Neither would I have them take the blame for any imperfections of my moral character now. I am grateful for and proud of myself. My past didn’t make me. I made myself.

Safe incest, sex with object, consume body; survey report on answers to Hadit’s extreme “morally wrong?” Questions (1)

foreword: In one of the lectures from “Moralities in Everyday life” in Coursera, I am immediately intrigued by four of Hadit’s extreme-circumstances questions for they trigger the blind spot in people’s moral judgment—

we tend to confuse cultural values, purity, psychological issues—in common, “normalcy”—with moral right, and it is very possible that our moral judgment is based on reasons amoral, or, even unreasonable gut feelings. As a result, we use moral rationalization—do the judgment first, then find a reason to justify it—instead of moral reasoning more often. 

In this unofficial report, I would give brief results of each question, lay out big arguments I heard, analyze the elements of moralities these answers involve, and finally give my own thoughts on these questions and answers.

I. How many Yes vs. No

I asked the following four questions to more than 10 persons (including my high school classmates and teachers) per questions:

1. consensual incest between adult brothers, kept as a secret, and they remain sibling relationship—morally wrong, or not?

Brief results (more info later): out of 14 persons, 8 persons consider it morally wrong, 1 person says it depends, while 4 persons consider it not wrong.

2. a family dog gets crushed by a car and dies. the family has no planned dinner so they eat the dog’s body for fun (not for survival), and feel happy—morally wrong, or not?

out of  12 persons, 6 persons consider it morally wrong, while 6 persons consider it not wrong.

3. cleaning a toilet with your country’s flag while you have nothing else to clean it with—morally wrong?

out of 12 persons, 5 persons consider it morally wrong, 1 person thinks it depends, while 6 persons consider it not wrong.

4. having sex with chicken meat brought from grocery store—morally wrong?

out of 12 persons, 6 persons consider it morally wrong, while 6 persons consider it not wrong.

only 2 persons consider all 4 actions not wrong, while 1 person consider the 3rd action wrong only.

II. main arguments & elements of moralities involve

(arguments are ranked from intense detest, moderate, liberal)

Morally-wrong arguments:

Argument 1 (from approximately 3 people per questions): it’s a misuse of something important & defiance against sentiments and purpose—purity & authority

People with this argument believe that these actions should not happen at the first place due to its impure and unnatural nature. For consensual incest and having sex with chicken meat, they believe it is defiance against natural kinship, and/or misuse of sex which is very powerful; in family dog and country flag case, treating what you hold dear as food is a disrespect for the sentiments of family love or nationalism. One interesting thing is that 1 of these people consider only the “cleaning flag with toilet” action immoral and, moreover, absolutely immoral no matter which country it is, because it is just very badly disrespectful for the country and the connected sentiments, and this same person believe that it is wrong to eat the dog from another family because it is disrespectful to their feelings. 

How it relates to different usual standards of moral and amoral judgment

On one hand, this kind of reasons are based on high regard these people hold for healthy purpose/ intention and it showcases somehow admirable perfectionism, wedding oneself to noble principles. It is although not necessarily about moral, but a very critical approach to attaining psychological health and spiritual fulfillment, to make life worth as much as possible;

on the other hand, another aspect of this psychological purity could be the attachment to authority—the invisible but entrenched social values and order. When they talk of “what kinship is supposed to be like” and in what kind of a “destructive, distortive manner” could incest alter the chemistry of family relationships, they have determined what is natural “between family members” based on what is socially acknowledged and prevalent. It is the same for the family dog and country flag—no factual harm would be done to anyone or oneself due to the lifelessness of both objects (corpse and flag), but the social norms have rendered these two objects with important meanings and throughout history, ritual is a critical aspect of expression of humanity’s most sincere mind and heart.

While at first confused over how even the smartest people around me could not be liberal and open-minded regard to those harmless matters-of-choice, my wise philosophy teacher A. tells me about the reasonable concerns: those social norms have been established to consolidate the order and pragmatics of the world we live in, while the repetition and passage of ritual have guaranteed to always remind the society of certain sentiments and beliefs. Once they are broken, who knows how the other keystones of the social ideology system would be broken apart? what would come next?

The respect for what we’ve become and for what makes us the way we are now, the awareness of how fragile peace and security can be, are the motives why regardless of how it actually defies the human right of personal privacy of love and stuff, people still would contempt those whose private affairs challenge the normalcy: Who would know how to maintain the family structure while once everybody in the country begins to marry their siblings, and what would happen next?

For example, he says. People were pretty concerned about the normalization of homosexuality due to the concerns regarding other social affairs, such as family hierarchy, parenting, power change, etc, and also used to be very cliche on “gender binary” to maintain the gender roles that serve the society “the best”. But once we become accepting of gay and lesbians, and then the populace of LGBTQ community grow, the world still spins as well—and with the arrangement of male-or-female bathroom remains the same, which probably contribute to the convenience of this transition.

(I am totally supportive and even admiring of LGBTQ, but fairly speaking, isn’t the relationship between gay or lesbians and the same gender the same between straight people of opposite sex? so it makes sense to assume that restroom arrangement would be different if exhibiting sexualities in the public mind have expanded, but it doesn’t. so maybe breaking conventional values would not be as disruptive. what if we are assuming too much of “what would come next”?)

(To Be Continued…would also talk about my own answers next time)















Mindfulness in Japanese Culture (2): Haiku

 Japanese could always be integrated with the small in the natural world and be enlightened, dive into the specific to a journey of the universal, and one way they convey their enlightenment to others is through haiku.

Internal and External: Retrieved online

The Road of Mystery leads to our mind; vice versa. The mind is the universe; they’re in one.

Haiku—observation and enlightenment

 Haiku is a very short form of Japanese poetry. It is not only about the observation of the external world, but also the internal ideas, impressions, state of mind that are evoked.

The Old Pond: Beautiful Philosophy Riddles

 The point is, if you perceive the natural phenomenon with a sensitive and thoughtful heart, you can access the life riddles within them. Take a look at the simplistic The Old Pond by Matsuo Basho, the first famous Haiku composer:  

The Silent Old Pond,

A Mirror of Ancient Calm,

A frog-leaps-in-flash.

The literal interpretation is: the water is calm and peaceful, and the leap of the frog renders it vitality, and then it turns back into serene silence, as if nothing has happened. It portrays the serene beauty of the nature, its inclusiveness of dynamics and stillness.

   However, if you dig even deeper, pond is really alike to our mind and frog might refer to worldly things that jump into our mind and arouse thoughts.Then the moral might be:

   Everything we are conscious of now would become bygones and memories. Some memories, we might never literally think of them again, but they have precipitated into the deeper part of our mind. They still have an impact on us.