Something is in the air.
Ominous.
The dogs are running away.
Signs of the times abound.
It's just another opportunity to tune in to my own wavelength and get in touch with the intricacies of sentient experience.
This moment, then the next. Before I know it, a billion moments have passed between blinks of astonishment. I am alive. I am thinking. I am feeling. Each aspect of experience is enhanced by the contemplation of it. Real time thoughts effect real time goosebumps. Am I my thoughts? Am I my feelings? Am I the trillions of cells that comprise my body?
I blink my third eye and open my first two. I draw my hands up to my face and attempt to memorize the profile of my fingerprints. I try to qualify the contorted contours of friction ridges. But they simply are, they are neither right or wrong. I really have nothing in the world to compare them to. There is no authority to which I answer for my finger prints. I may either accept them, or reject them. Others may accept them, or reject them. There is no device whereby to measure their objective quality. Perhaps a week ago, they would not have had these microscopic cuts from ivy vines, but perhaps they wont be there in another week. I will heal. They are what they are: here and now. They are as intrinsic to me as the braids in my eyes.
My gaze drifts down to my palm. Can palms be read? Are these furrows and lines a novel, or a novelty? Are these two volumes a history, or a prophecy? Do the cuts, and burns, and abrasions of my past foretell my future? Am I destined for great things, simply for the way my bones fold my flesh?
I took my life for granted for so long, it has kind of become a habit. But slowly, I am becoming mindful of my mortality. Dates jump off the page at me. Ptolemy's works, Shakespeare's. WWI was nearly a hundred years ago. The last survivor of the Titanic is dead, Jesus walked the earth 27 average lifetimes ago. Man set foot on the moon just .58 average lifetimes ago. I live in perpetual astonishment at the advancement of technology, and the simplicity of the human experience.
I rock my hands and face them downward. So many scars. THIS is a history. This is my unfinished narrative. These are the tokens of my existence. Some are badges of honor. Many are reminders of the follies of youth: impatience, stubbornness, negligence and imprudence. Perhaps I dwell on the past because of these little reminders. How many less would I have if I had simply worn gloves during my stint as a mechanic? I recall the discomfort of wearing gloves. They were veritable blindfolds to the friction ridges on my fingertips, impairing sensory feedback. Straight jackets. They always came off within minutes. I would rather get burned on a hot engine than be frustrated, unable to feel the edges of a nut, bolt, or threaded post. "Feel the burn", say physical trainers. It puts you in the 'here' and 'now' of your routine. It's not masochistic, it is real life. Hot and cold.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
The Space Between....
To err is Human; to forgive, Devine.
To seek to amend, is to narrow the space between the two.
Something I've been thinking a lot about lately: the difference between religion and religious tradition, and culture.
I have grown up in the LDS church, and I have always felt something expelling me from it. Deep down, there was something that made me not feel comfortable, and in the end, I wanted out. I am still figuring out what those things are, and they vary greatly. But one that I am willing to consider the possibility of having misunderstood, is that of the difference between the doctrine of the Mormon faith, and the culture of the Mormon faith. This by no means should be understood as me accepting the doctrine, it simply means that I may have misplaced resentments, which I am willing to concede if/where I find them.
I have often heard is said that "the gospel is perfect, the people aren't" and I have always considered that a cheap cop-out for all the traditions that really have no place in God's One Church on the Face of The Earth With a Fullness of Truth. How do these things happen? How do we know who's got it right, and who's got it wrong? We are all "just human", after all, right? And as such, we are fallible, and not only ABLE to fail, we are more or less DESTINED to fail. God has put us here, as we are taught, that we might gain knowledge.
It seems to me that about 99% of the population of the world since the dawn of time (certain deities not included) has learned from making mistakes, from failure.... Trial and Error.
That means that we are all probably being too hard on ourselves. But I think what most people experience within the church, is folks being too hard on each other. So much of people's behaviors in the church are unhealthy, and create a toxic atmosphere in the very place where hurt souls come to worship their redeemer. So many people associate that icky feeling of unworthiness with the Gospel. Ironically enough, it is our tendency to measure ourselves against each other that harbors these feelings of self-consciousness and insecurity. And it is this insecurity that leads us to want to measure up to the expectations of those around us. Perhaps before we can even begin to understand the role of the Atonement in our own lives, we should seek to understand everything that it is NOT. And if we can do that, then we can probably start incorporating the principles of the atonement into our relationships with others within, or outside of, the church.
And so we realize that each of us is just trying to do the best we can with what we've got. And some of us are more broken than others, and we each have our unique challenges in our respective unique lives. There is plenty we can do to become more Christ-like without ever stepping foot in a church.
Is it a good thing that Mormons are traditionally known for coloring in the lines? or are we all scared too witless to even begin practicing our religion? Are we too terrified of our children's failures in their time on earth, to help them feel comforted, hopeful, loved, accepted unconditionally as it is our Christian duty to do? How willing are we to take accountability for our own role in the experience of others? Tradition is the product of shared habits as much as it is a product of shared beliefs. If there is something toxic in the way we see our fellow man, we must be able to take inventory, and do away with the things that are not God like in us. God doesn't shame us into compliant behavior. He doesn't intimidate us into following the rules. He doesn't guilt trip us for failures, he doesn't talk behind our backs, he doesn't withhold his love when we mess up.
And a Biggie: God doesn't beat us, batter us, abuse us, resent us, break us for our stubbornness with domination and abuse of authority, nor does he owe us.
But sometimes we do that. And when we do, WE owe our victims. unfortunately, we cannot repay our victims, but we should be able to, and we CAN start today. In fact, when we don't do all we can to fix where we have erred, we very well may be stunting the spiritual growth process for our victims who haven't been able to process their pain enough to feel love and acceptance and worth in the presence of their redeemer.
Food for thought.
To seek to amend, is to narrow the space between the two.
Something I've been thinking a lot about lately: the difference between religion and religious tradition, and culture.
I have grown up in the LDS church, and I have always felt something expelling me from it. Deep down, there was something that made me not feel comfortable, and in the end, I wanted out. I am still figuring out what those things are, and they vary greatly. But one that I am willing to consider the possibility of having misunderstood, is that of the difference between the doctrine of the Mormon faith, and the culture of the Mormon faith. This by no means should be understood as me accepting the doctrine, it simply means that I may have misplaced resentments, which I am willing to concede if/where I find them.
I have often heard is said that "the gospel is perfect, the people aren't" and I have always considered that a cheap cop-out for all the traditions that really have no place in God's One Church on the Face of The Earth With a Fullness of Truth. How do these things happen? How do we know who's got it right, and who's got it wrong? We are all "just human", after all, right? And as such, we are fallible, and not only ABLE to fail, we are more or less DESTINED to fail. God has put us here, as we are taught, that we might gain knowledge.
It seems to me that about 99% of the population of the world since the dawn of time (certain deities not included) has learned from making mistakes, from failure.... Trial and Error.
That means that we are all probably being too hard on ourselves. But I think what most people experience within the church, is folks being too hard on each other. So much of people's behaviors in the church are unhealthy, and create a toxic atmosphere in the very place where hurt souls come to worship their redeemer. So many people associate that icky feeling of unworthiness with the Gospel. Ironically enough, it is our tendency to measure ourselves against each other that harbors these feelings of self-consciousness and insecurity. And it is this insecurity that leads us to want to measure up to the expectations of those around us. Perhaps before we can even begin to understand the role of the Atonement in our own lives, we should seek to understand everything that it is NOT. And if we can do that, then we can probably start incorporating the principles of the atonement into our relationships with others within, or outside of, the church.
And so we realize that each of us is just trying to do the best we can with what we've got. And some of us are more broken than others, and we each have our unique challenges in our respective unique lives. There is plenty we can do to become more Christ-like without ever stepping foot in a church.
Is it a good thing that Mormons are traditionally known for coloring in the lines? or are we all scared too witless to even begin practicing our religion? Are we too terrified of our children's failures in their time on earth, to help them feel comforted, hopeful, loved, accepted unconditionally as it is our Christian duty to do? How willing are we to take accountability for our own role in the experience of others? Tradition is the product of shared habits as much as it is a product of shared beliefs. If there is something toxic in the way we see our fellow man, we must be able to take inventory, and do away with the things that are not God like in us. God doesn't shame us into compliant behavior. He doesn't intimidate us into following the rules. He doesn't guilt trip us for failures, he doesn't talk behind our backs, he doesn't withhold his love when we mess up.
And a Biggie: God doesn't beat us, batter us, abuse us, resent us, break us for our stubbornness with domination and abuse of authority, nor does he owe us.
But sometimes we do that. And when we do, WE owe our victims. unfortunately, we cannot repay our victims, but we should be able to, and we CAN start today. In fact, when we don't do all we can to fix where we have erred, we very well may be stunting the spiritual growth process for our victims who haven't been able to process their pain enough to feel love and acceptance and worth in the presence of their redeemer.
Food for thought.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
I believe that "in the beginning..." there was ultimate truth. I believe that that truth was exploded out into the universe by a compelling force. I believe that the bits and pieces of that truth are now scattered about the universe like so many precious stones, and I find that these gems are like lost car keys, or a wallet: you always find them in the last place you check for them. However, unlike the search for car keys, the search for truth is perpetual, and those hiding places are infinite.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Eden's Orchards
I was raised to believe that Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating the apples which were "The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" (thenceforth renamed "fuji apples", I think; because both are just about a mouthful).
I was taught that God knew that they surely MUST eat of this fruit if his plan were to succeed. but he gave them instructions, and gave them agency to choose. And in the end, they chose not to listen to God.
Now, if we try and fathom this as human beings, it seems pretty messed up. Does it not? What kind of a father (or mother) would you be if you put your kids in a room with various types of fruits and vegetables (I hope you would at least do that) and told them "if you eat this, you shall surely die" or maybe even just "if you eat this, I will be extremely disappointed in you", and then left them to do as they please, knowing the it must eventually end when their curiosity, or confusion, led them to try the plumbs, or the apples that you forbid them from eating?
Perhaps you would set up the audio/video baby monitor so you could watch them. And maybe 10 or 15 minutes after the deed is done (which was your hope all along, although you gave them the choice) you come sauntering into the room and say something like "waaaaait a minute! You wanna tell me just what the heck is going on here!?" and watch em squirm.
Then you could make them go outside and weed the flower beds or something.
You disgust me. No... no, sorry, maybe you aren't that sort of parent. It's okay.
Nobody's perfect.
Back to the story. So, Eve was a curious little thing (how could she not be? She had no knowledge of good and evil), so she succumbed to the temptation of the asp (do NOT incorporate snakes into your twisted little psychological experiments with your children), and she ate the apple. I hear it was pretty darn tasty.
Adam comes along, and he's pretty in tune with her, and he can tell she's bein' kinda sketchy, so he says something like "waaaaitaminute! What's that in your hand?" See? He was pretty curious himself.
So anyway, she knows she's caught.
She's caught good.
She confesses. But then she says "Oh eM Gee, Adam. You, like, HAVE to try this apple."
Time froze for a second at this point. Eve was holding the apple up to his face, so he kinda had to call a time out, in order to think about this thoroughly enough for the consequences of his next choices to be fully understood.
So everything is frozen. He steps back, looks around— wait, wait... I think he mighta actually kissed Eve a moment or two before the apple topic came up.
Yeah, no wait, now I remember.
So basically she tried to feed him the apple (this was actually the first flirtatious food fight in history, see the
'Cause even minus a rib, he could have completely shut her down and ended it with a full-Nelson, but it was kinda cutesy and stuff so he's laughing and being like "oh stop! Lol! I.. Ha you're tempting and/or hurting me! Cut it out!"
You know, that whole thing.
If you're from a Mormon background, or are otherwise sexually repressed, you understand how enjoyable it can be to work out your pent up sexual frustrations over fruit, or lifesavers and toothpicks.
Anyway, somewhere in the scuffle, he accidentally lets the apple graze his lip.
Okay, where were we? Oh yeah, time frozen. What actually happened was not that he froze time, he actually just kinda licked his lip, and without knowing it, he was sent into this world of knowledge, and this rush of understanding made it feel like time had stopped.
think of the (cleanflix version of) The matrix— it all just made sense all of the sudden.
Even the part about the apple juice on his lip. See, with an understanding of the world around him, and with this newly-downloaded understanding of what God calls Right and Wrong, he realized the role of the Fruit of the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good and Evil, and he knew that he had accidentally partaken, and that it was too late anyway.
Anyway, it was as a result of this knowledge newfound
that his reasoning was sound as he looked around
at all the apple cores on the ground
and noted that Eve had not eaten just a bite, but a pound.
He knew in that instant there was no going back. He understood that they must now surely die, and with this knowledge, Adam started to cry, cause let's face it, he was a pretty emotional guy.
He knew, that he must also eat of the Fruit of the Tr— the "Fuji apples". Now, many people wonder (far many more do not) how he might have known this. Clearly, it was because of the little taste of the fruit that he accidentally and unknowingly experienced on his lip. Now you know.
So, two or three days later (He wanted to watch them writhe for a bit first), God decided to kick it in the Garden. And He "just so happened" to come across Adam and Eve. And saw that they had covered themselves (See: "shame") and He was wroth.
Of course He was actually thrilled, and this is the first example of dramatic irony in literature. :-)
And soo, thrilled to be let down by His perfectly flawed creations, He banished them and removed Himself from their presence. He told Adam that he would till the ground for the rest of his life, and this is how he would live. From his labors, and from the ground. In short, he was grounded. It is worth noting that this is only documented case of anyone being grounded for the rest of their life.
From there, things get pretty boring. Adam and Eve discovered the process of procreation, developed the science of cultivation, parenting techniques were established, sibling rivalry was established, Adam and Eve became the second parents to fail their children (coincidentally, they raised the first Sociopath, and murder).... Pretty much nothing has really changed since then.
Now here's what is interesting to me:
with this Knowledge of Good and Evil, the bond between husband and wife was so strong, that Adam gave up immortality, the presence of God, the favor of God... And he even got a job as a farmer! Just to be with her 'til death do us part'.
That's some heavy-duty commitment.
And it was completely human.
I like to think of this as the first apostasy. And it is a hopeful message that I draw from it. In the end, Adam got angel status. Hells yes he did.
So what do we have to fear if we succumb to our humanity and leave the presence of
God in the name of love? God is clearly in the business of making demands which He may or may not want us to meet. The bible is full of His contradictions. I think religion is another of His really cruel tests. Like asking Abraham to kill and burn his favorite son, just to see if he'd do it. I suppose it's more fair to say that it *seems* cruel to us, but what do we know of God? We are averse to the idea of sacrificing our sons, but clearly that is a moral act in God's eyes, he actually FOLLOWED THROUGH with that crap on his only begotten son at the end in the second act of the New Testament!
Anyway, God has a good record of making demands and expecting them to be broken. I think "endure to the end" is one such demand. Perhaps He is just waiting for us to go "wait a minute, this just doesn't jive with logic, and I'm going to go with logic on this one"? Probably that'll bring about the next stage of the plan, when we realize it's a test, and pass with flying colors by recognizing our innate sense of reason, and we fly from the nest of organized religion. I think that must be what God really means when he says he has restored the One Church on the Face of the Earth Today With A Fullness of Truth, and that it has a membership of exactly one fifth of one percent (That's 0.2%) of the inhabitants of the earth in its congregation...
It's a joke, see? We just don't get God's sense of humor yet.
Also, as moody and fickle as God is....
I'm certain He is a She.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Ideas and Antibodies
Think back, if you will, to when we salamandered forth out of the primordial soup to become underfootlings of T-Rex, and the Mastodons. By the time we left the jungles and knuckled out onto the great plains, we had become quite the organism.
Our physical characteristics were adapting ever so gradually to the routine of our existence. Our cellular makeup was like a laboratory of invention, finding solutions for the dangers that faced us. Along the way, advanced life had developed ocular facilities, and the phenomenon of vision, as a invaluably efficient and secure way of navigating our environment. Then maybe we began growing eye lids, and lashes to protect that sense. Down the road, fingernails to protect the phalanges, the thumb as an adaptation... We were solving problems related to mortality. All evolution is a means of preserving or extending life expectancy. It is something innate in our very cellular composition. Even the most microscopic bodily functions are concerned with self-preservation. White blood cells and antibodies are the solution to infection or viruses. Foreign bacteria are recognized and preemptively annihilated by antibodies matched to the task. like little soldiers at war with invading forces.
As these highly complex organisms, the human species established itself as top predator on Earth. We overcame our environment. Our "inferior" ancestors continued the species by seeking shelter from the elements, from the dangers of large predators, etc. A subsequent generation was able to conceive of, and build shelters. Yet another utilized this ability to construct habitats convenient to food sources, to water, away from the hunting grounds of other predators. We moved from the jungles to the plains, where we developed the science of cultivation, and the art of the hunt. The development of tools and weapons ensuring more safety, more respite from harsh conditions. We were outsmarting the seasons and the saber-tooths. Language was accelerating at an exponential rate: from "want (food, fire, sex, etc)" we moved onto and the ability to start a political system. Tribes became communities with a hierarchy of intellect, instead of physical ability. The evolution of language was as much a survival mechanism as the immune system. Language was a tool which took these separate beings, the members of a population, and reconnected them as if they were fungus with a common root system, or fish or fowl that move in schools and flocks, like frogs or fireflies that keep in touch with grunts and winks. Territorial pissings being the passive aggressive communication of loners, like wolves, and the nattering and cooing language of lovebirds being the other extreme... Language was all around us. We needed to evolve beyond.
I think the first words were onomatopoeia. But it is quite likely that the first word was actually "ouch".
It was probably first uttered accidentally right after some other accident, and it just fit. From there it must have progressed something like 'it' 'that' 'eat' 'this' 'sex' 'hush' 'sleep' 'me' 'you'... 'kill' 'take' 'RUN!' 'rock' 'trap' 'dog' 'poo-poo' 'beetle' 'bee' 'fungus' 'swine' 'tasty' 'mine' 'lawsuit' 'boat' 'hell' 'boss'....
Before you know it, we have a massive exchange of ideas, and a mass of bodies in some level of synchronicity, like stem cells coordinating the construction of a baby's nose in the womb, or army ants digging to china. It was the ability to share ideas, and to expound upon experience which allowed us to become the advanced beings that we like to think we are today.
But at the same time, these ideas have become routines. We have mindsets, we have schools of thought, we have laws and statutes, and faux pas, and taboos. We went from everything being relevant, to the idea that some things are best left unsaid. Trends became societies, opinions became cultures, and cultures began censoring opinions. Now we have organized religions that are as much in opposition toward their neighboring religions as hutus and tootsies waiting for an excuse to hack each other apart as if they were simply a physical manifestation of the concepts and ideas they represent. Not to mention the cold war, and countless other open displays of distrust and disdain.
And then there are your crazy, misanthropist types. .... ahem.
What is interesting to me, is how words and ideas seem to have taken on the exact same characteristics of blood. When an idea that is foreign is expressed, it is shot down with words. As if it were poison, and we have the antidote. Our mindsets have become the new realm of defense mechanisms. As we mature, we grow "thick skin", so that we aren't as emotionally vulnerable to the harsh capabilities of words. But ideas can creep into our minds, just like viruses into the bloodstream. And so we have developed vocabularies of words that are meant to attack those ideas before they reach the heart, the brain, the soul. We are immune to outside ideas.
How many cavemen do you think were killed over disagreements? I imagine the knee-jerk answer is "a lot", because the idea is that they were barbaric, simple and immature. But when you think about it, probably a lot more human beings have been killed in the past couple generations over disagreements than may have even existed in our concept of what "caveman" constitutes. How did we become so closed minded? Monkeys killing monkeys over territory, resources, etc. I guess I can accept. But have we devolved to the point that we kill each other over ideas? Are we "forward thinkers" if we refuse to think about the ideas of others? Have we got all the answers? are new ideas, or ideas which modern society has branded as archaic, or barbaric or unrefined so VERY threatening that we have to shoot them down on an individual basis? Are we becoming a species of "backward thinkers?"
I do my fair share of shooting down ideas, and yes, I'm going to try to justify myself.
I feel that I do it in the name of forward—or at least "free"—thinking. I feel like as a human race we are so incredibly separated from that cooperative, biological sensitivity that language was developed to facilitate, that if we continue as we are, we will bring about our own self-destruction. Why is there such poison spread throughout the whole of human existence? marriages are torn apart by lack of communication. Countries are divided. Living human beings, and their bodies, are obliterated because of differences of opinion, or religion, or skin color, or social class. can we not transcend these things by simply opening our minds? To agree to give each other not only the benefit of the doubt, but the space and freedom to express their ideas, and themselves, without judgement.
We can do it.
—Evan
Our physical characteristics were adapting ever so gradually to the routine of our existence. Our cellular makeup was like a laboratory of invention, finding solutions for the dangers that faced us. Along the way, advanced life had developed ocular facilities, and the phenomenon of vision, as a invaluably efficient and secure way of navigating our environment. Then maybe we began growing eye lids, and lashes to protect that sense. Down the road, fingernails to protect the phalanges, the thumb as an adaptation... We were solving problems related to mortality. All evolution is a means of preserving or extending life expectancy. It is something innate in our very cellular composition. Even the most microscopic bodily functions are concerned with self-preservation. White blood cells and antibodies are the solution to infection or viruses. Foreign bacteria are recognized and preemptively annihilated by antibodies matched to the task. like little soldiers at war with invading forces.
As these highly complex organisms, the human species established itself as top predator on Earth. We overcame our environment. Our "inferior" ancestors continued the species by seeking shelter from the elements, from the dangers of large predators, etc. A subsequent generation was able to conceive of, and build shelters. Yet another utilized this ability to construct habitats convenient to food sources, to water, away from the hunting grounds of other predators. We moved from the jungles to the plains, where we developed the science of cultivation, and the art of the hunt. The development of tools and weapons ensuring more safety, more respite from harsh conditions. We were outsmarting the seasons and the saber-tooths. Language was accelerating at an exponential rate: from "want (food, fire, sex, etc)" we moved onto and the ability to start a political system. Tribes became communities with a hierarchy of intellect, instead of physical ability. The evolution of language was as much a survival mechanism as the immune system. Language was a tool which took these separate beings, the members of a population, and reconnected them as if they were fungus with a common root system, or fish or fowl that move in schools and flocks, like frogs or fireflies that keep in touch with grunts and winks. Territorial pissings being the passive aggressive communication of loners, like wolves, and the nattering and cooing language of lovebirds being the other extreme... Language was all around us. We needed to evolve beyond.
I think the first words were onomatopoeia. But it is quite likely that the first word was actually "ouch".
It was probably first uttered accidentally right after some other accident, and it just fit. From there it must have progressed something like 'it' 'that' 'eat' 'this' 'sex' 'hush' 'sleep' 'me' 'you'... 'kill' 'take' 'RUN!' 'rock' 'trap' 'dog' 'poo-poo' 'beetle' 'bee' 'fungus' 'swine' 'tasty' 'mine' 'lawsuit' 'boat' 'hell' 'boss'....
Before you know it, we have a massive exchange of ideas, and a mass of bodies in some level of synchronicity, like stem cells coordinating the construction of a baby's nose in the womb, or army ants digging to china. It was the ability to share ideas, and to expound upon experience which allowed us to become the advanced beings that we like to think we are today.
But at the same time, these ideas have become routines. We have mindsets, we have schools of thought, we have laws and statutes, and faux pas, and taboos. We went from everything being relevant, to the idea that some things are best left unsaid. Trends became societies, opinions became cultures, and cultures began censoring opinions. Now we have organized religions that are as much in opposition toward their neighboring religions as hutus and tootsies waiting for an excuse to hack each other apart as if they were simply a physical manifestation of the concepts and ideas they represent. Not to mention the cold war, and countless other open displays of distrust and disdain.
And then there are your crazy, misanthropist types. .... ahem.
What is interesting to me, is how words and ideas seem to have taken on the exact same characteristics of blood. When an idea that is foreign is expressed, it is shot down with words. As if it were poison, and we have the antidote. Our mindsets have become the new realm of defense mechanisms. As we mature, we grow "thick skin", so that we aren't as emotionally vulnerable to the harsh capabilities of words. But ideas can creep into our minds, just like viruses into the bloodstream. And so we have developed vocabularies of words that are meant to attack those ideas before they reach the heart, the brain, the soul. We are immune to outside ideas.
How many cavemen do you think were killed over disagreements? I imagine the knee-jerk answer is "a lot", because the idea is that they were barbaric, simple and immature. But when you think about it, probably a lot more human beings have been killed in the past couple generations over disagreements than may have even existed in our concept of what "caveman" constitutes. How did we become so closed minded? Monkeys killing monkeys over territory, resources, etc. I guess I can accept. But have we devolved to the point that we kill each other over ideas? Are we "forward thinkers" if we refuse to think about the ideas of others? Have we got all the answers? are new ideas, or ideas which modern society has branded as archaic, or barbaric or unrefined so VERY threatening that we have to shoot them down on an individual basis? Are we becoming a species of "backward thinkers?"
I do my fair share of shooting down ideas, and yes, I'm going to try to justify myself.
I feel that I do it in the name of forward—or at least "free"—thinking. I feel like as a human race we are so incredibly separated from that cooperative, biological sensitivity that language was developed to facilitate, that if we continue as we are, we will bring about our own self-destruction. Why is there such poison spread throughout the whole of human existence? marriages are torn apart by lack of communication. Countries are divided. Living human beings, and their bodies, are obliterated because of differences of opinion, or religion, or skin color, or social class. can we not transcend these things by simply opening our minds? To agree to give each other not only the benefit of the doubt, but the space and freedom to express their ideas, and themselves, without judgement.
We can do it.
—Evan
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Evolution of Small Thinking (pt.2)
Part 2 of 2 (see 'Righteous Indignation Disorder' for pt.1)
I am as guilty as the next person of this thinking error called righteous indignation. In all fairness, it is probably as absurd for me to claim that the thinking error may be attributed to religion, as it is preposterous for religion to lay claim to the concept of morality. But I can only speak from my own experience, and I do feel that from an early age, I was taught to exercise closed-mindedness in the form of righteous indignation. Every time I encountered smokers, drinkers, immodesty, democrats, gays, seventh day adventists, etc. I experienced varying degrees of righteous indignation.
Perhaps it is fair to assert that it was pertaining to religious matters that I first observed the behavior and grew to emulate it. But I believe the system of society which has become increasingly "Us vs. Them" in attitude is due to self-justified thinking patterns that date back to the caveman days. We exist in a society rife with thinking errors, like Fundamental Attribution Error (which plays a considerable role in Righteous Indignation), which are rooted in cognitive processes, or categorization models, such as Set/Fuzzy Set Theory, which is a system of categorization of objects or concepts, or of tendencies toward certain categories (like gradations of "fuzzy"ness); or Correspondent Inference Theory, which is concerned with assessing personalities based on desirable, or undesirable behaviors.
Social psychology is born of the very basic, instinctual, thought process which is concerned with simply observing the world in which we find ourselves one way or another: Biopsychology. From here we derive our core conscious, or our ability to observe the world, and with the aid of cognitive devices such as categorization (safe vs dangerous, etc.), we grow to operate in ways that would seem to prolong our existence, instinctively avoiding danger, and seeking out security.
From the instant we are born, we are obsessed with obtaining and maintaining security. From the sensory overloaded new-born who grapples for the soothing characteristics of a mother, and latches onto her with instinctive, precious little 'iron' fists, to the soldier who fights in the name of freedom, and through a certain set of cognitive habits, is capable killing without apprehension. Atrocities against humanity are exacted by his strategic and methodical hand. In his iron grip are the weapons which slaughter man, woman— new mother, and precious child. In the name of Security.
After social tendencies, such as cooperation or camaraderie, establish infrastructure of relative physical security from the elements security is found in forming social structures—the idea of enforced morality. Our instinctive ideas of safety and danger carry over into the abstract. After we have come to a social understanding that 'every (cave)man for himself' is not ideal, we form communities.
No longer do we assess our surroundings simply on the basis of inherent preferability (shelter, food, warmth, etc) or undesirability (hunger, hostility, etc.) but on the understanding that we, as well as those around us, have the cognitive potential to choose whether we will be agreeable or dangerous. And from here, we begin enforcing rules which would affect behavior in the direction of safety. No killing, no stealing, work to contribute, share, etc.
But inevitably, our social bonds, and our shared values, will introduce new dangers. We crate such strong bonds that we actually segregate the human/caveman community into different tribes, based on different preferences, different rules.
Security and self-preservation playing the role they do on our behaviors, we feel either threatened by, or superior to, outsiders--even other cavemen. Inter-social behavior becomes a double standard: 'don't kill' becomes 'don't kill unless it is for the safety, or good of your tribe/family, country, etc.', 'don't steal' becomes 'if you must, steal from outsiders'.
It's not long before cavemen have conceived of all the principles and double standards that comprise modern society. Not much has changed since the dinosaurs died. We no longer fear the saber toothed tiger, but we do fear for the preservation of our traditions. We have espoused certain philosophies, beliefs, thinking patterns, etc. which preserve these traditions. And we are too proud to acknowledge that we maintain only partial truths. In fact, to even suggest that we are self-deceiving creatures, or to question the existence of the traditional God, is enough to incite righteous indignation. Perhaps it is that we are seeking to maintain a traditional belief in God, or an absolute truth that blinds us to our arrogance, ignorance and indignation.
Indignation itself is the prime response which maintains the closed loop thinking that tradition, and dogma, are rooted in. It is the biggest small-thinking habit that ensures a continuation in a cycle of small thinking.
Thanks for reading. Comments are always welcome!
Righteous Indignation Disorder
Part 1 of 2
I grew up with an anecdotal story about a sinless man, who acted out in physical aggression toward some group of individuals who had incited his wrath by offending God.
As the story goes, these men were violating the sanctity of a holy place by peddling on the steps thereof. And, as the story goes, they were assaulted for this offense— their tables and wares upturned and hewn out behind them.
The alleged "moral" of the story, is that if God has spoken his will, and it is violated, then the enforcer of his will shall not be accountable for his aggressive pursuit of said offenders, or for the exacting of Godly justice upon them by physical violence. Because, as the story goes, the sinless, perfect man remained sinless. This concept is called "righteous indignation".
As an 8- or 9-year-old, I thought 'okay, so God wouldn't judge me as long as I was driven to anger on His behalf... Probably I will never find myself faced with such a situation, so I needn't worry. A better rule of thumb is to never be violent or aggressive.'
The idea behind the resolution to not act out in violence or aggression, is that if I ever did find myself in a situation where clearly God was offended by the actions of someone around me, I would surely know it. I would then make a knowledge-based choice to abandon my non-violent demeanor in the name of God. But otherwise, to act out in anger or indignation and assume that I was justified could prove to be a pitfall, and perhaps my anger would not be sinless in the eyes of God. Surely, righteous anger is a different emotion than plain ol', run-of-the-mill anger; play it safe until all doubt is gone.
Until recently, I had not realized what I had really taken to heart from that story. As an adult I have rarely reacted physically to offense. But, I realized, I HAVE reacted with righteous indignation.
Righteous, or justified indignation is more common than I had ever thought possible, because I was identifying the physical manifestation of this indignant behavior as the defining characteristic. When, in reality, it is the mindset that matters; It's the thought that counts.
I thought of all the times my anger was kindled at the actions or words of others, not because of some personal offense, but offense on the behalf of my God. Perhaps it is considered a God-like attribute to be repulsed by sin, or the appearance of evil. After all, God cannot look upon sin with the slightest bit of tolerance. As his righteous followers, why should we?
We do not look on 'sin' with the slightest bit of tolerance. Not at our "best". We might be tolerant of the sinner, knowing we all fall on occasion, but the sin we cannot abide. When evil men conspire to oppose the will of God, the righteous are obligated to act so as to prevent the spread of their influence, or the establishment of their amorality.
We as Christians have an obligation to oppose laws and practices which are contrary to the will of God. If we don't, the sin will be upon our own heads.
Is there any question of what we are to do when the God-Defined sanctity of marriage is being debated, or put to a vote?
What I am interested in is not the behavior of people who seek to act and live according to the will of God. I am more interested in the thoughts that lead to, and justify, those behaviors.
I believe that the core beliefs espoused by Christians shape their thoughts, which in turn dictate their actions and behavior. And I believe the core belief upon which these thoughts operate, is that of righteous anger, or indignation. It never even manifests in physical aggression, it is strictly a function of thought: the recognition of sin; the righteous indignation; the contemplation of recourse for the offense. After this thought process, we are able to overcome the behavior of the sinner in a (seemingly) non-violent manner. We head to the voting booth, to let our voices be heard, and overcome the offense toward God through the power of democracy; we destroy the offensive music, or pornographic material, or base literature; we take the opportunity to preach the truth, or fellowship would-be followers or participants in this offense toward God.
In short, righteous indignation is the thinking error which turns affinity to certain beliefs or values into intolerance of all ideas and behaviors which oppose it. The conclusion which is indignation is arrived at by the presumption of a moral absolute, and assumption of willful disregard for said set of moral or divine laws, and/or malicious intent toward that divine being or his followers.
In short, I (quite hypocritically) declare that to be possessed of righteous indignation is to be caught in circular thinking, and flawed logic. Or, in other words, to be closed-minded. To be possessed of a superiority complex, and perhaps even to be brainwashed.
I am righteously indignant against organized religion. It offends my God, which is logic. I am well practiced at jumping into a slough of thinking errors and unfair categorization of the religiously inclined. Perhaps I am more inclined to indignation as a result of having espoused religious beliefs for so long. Perhaps feeling that I discovered truth in spite of religion makes for a super-superiority complex in regard to those who still espouse and protect such beliefs.
TO BE CONTINUED.
I grew up with an anecdotal story about a sinless man, who acted out in physical aggression toward some group of individuals who had incited his wrath by offending God.
As the story goes, these men were violating the sanctity of a holy place by peddling on the steps thereof. And, as the story goes, they were assaulted for this offense— their tables and wares upturned and hewn out behind them.
The alleged "moral" of the story, is that if God has spoken his will, and it is violated, then the enforcer of his will shall not be accountable for his aggressive pursuit of said offenders, or for the exacting of Godly justice upon them by physical violence. Because, as the story goes, the sinless, perfect man remained sinless. This concept is called "righteous indignation".
As an 8- or 9-year-old, I thought 'okay, so God wouldn't judge me as long as I was driven to anger on His behalf... Probably I will never find myself faced with such a situation, so I needn't worry. A better rule of thumb is to never be violent or aggressive.'
The idea behind the resolution to not act out in violence or aggression, is that if I ever did find myself in a situation where clearly God was offended by the actions of someone around me, I would surely know it. I would then make a knowledge-based choice to abandon my non-violent demeanor in the name of God. But otherwise, to act out in anger or indignation and assume that I was justified could prove to be a pitfall, and perhaps my anger would not be sinless in the eyes of God. Surely, righteous anger is a different emotion than plain ol', run-of-the-mill anger; play it safe until all doubt is gone.
Until recently, I had not realized what I had really taken to heart from that story. As an adult I have rarely reacted physically to offense. But, I realized, I HAVE reacted with righteous indignation.
Righteous, or justified indignation is more common than I had ever thought possible, because I was identifying the physical manifestation of this indignant behavior as the defining characteristic. When, in reality, it is the mindset that matters; It's the thought that counts.
I thought of all the times my anger was kindled at the actions or words of others, not because of some personal offense, but offense on the behalf of my God. Perhaps it is considered a God-like attribute to be repulsed by sin, or the appearance of evil. After all, God cannot look upon sin with the slightest bit of tolerance. As his righteous followers, why should we?
We do not look on 'sin' with the slightest bit of tolerance. Not at our "best". We might be tolerant of the sinner, knowing we all fall on occasion, but the sin we cannot abide. When evil men conspire to oppose the will of God, the righteous are obligated to act so as to prevent the spread of their influence, or the establishment of their amorality.
We as Christians have an obligation to oppose laws and practices which are contrary to the will of God. If we don't, the sin will be upon our own heads.
Is there any question of what we are to do when the God-Defined sanctity of marriage is being debated, or put to a vote?
What I am interested in is not the behavior of people who seek to act and live according to the will of God. I am more interested in the thoughts that lead to, and justify, those behaviors.
I believe that the core beliefs espoused by Christians shape their thoughts, which in turn dictate their actions and behavior. And I believe the core belief upon which these thoughts operate, is that of righteous anger, or indignation. It never even manifests in physical aggression, it is strictly a function of thought: the recognition of sin; the righteous indignation; the contemplation of recourse for the offense. After this thought process, we are able to overcome the behavior of the sinner in a (seemingly) non-violent manner. We head to the voting booth, to let our voices be heard, and overcome the offense toward God through the power of democracy; we destroy the offensive music, or pornographic material, or base literature; we take the opportunity to preach the truth, or fellowship would-be followers or participants in this offense toward God.
In short, righteous indignation is the thinking error which turns affinity to certain beliefs or values into intolerance of all ideas and behaviors which oppose it. The conclusion which is indignation is arrived at by the presumption of a moral absolute, and assumption of willful disregard for said set of moral or divine laws, and/or malicious intent toward that divine being or his followers.
In short, I (quite hypocritically) declare that to be possessed of righteous indignation is to be caught in circular thinking, and flawed logic. Or, in other words, to be closed-minded. To be possessed of a superiority complex, and perhaps even to be brainwashed.
I am righteously indignant against organized religion. It offends my God, which is logic. I am well practiced at jumping into a slough of thinking errors and unfair categorization of the religiously inclined. Perhaps I am more inclined to indignation as a result of having espoused religious beliefs for so long. Perhaps feeling that I discovered truth in spite of religion makes for a super-superiority complex in regard to those who still espouse and protect such beliefs.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Moments of Zen. Cycles of Entropy.
I have been meditating a lot in the past couple of weeks, seeking to find what makes me tick, what infinitely inspires me, so that I can focus on it, and let the rest go. What have been unable to do is reconcile my idealism with reality.
I don't think this makes me special, but perhaps my obsession with it does. My indefatigable quest for personal peace is thwarted by my own pervasive preoccupation with the destructive tendencies of humanity.
How can we live this way? So much intelligence used for ill. So much of society has become a cancer upon our humanity. Why are we STILL violent? As if physical domination will ever resolve discord— 'I don't like what you believe, so I am going to kill you'— it's like we are the product of a dispute between cavemen. That dispute has evolved into a feud between tribes, between nations, and between individuals who have never learned to live and let live. 150,000 years later, we have traded up our arsenal from sticks and stones (as we never did put much stock in words, which "never hurt") to nuclear arms.
We as Americans are aghast at the idea of someone strapping dynamite to their chest and blowing up a crowded street corner. Why have we not looked at our nation in macro- scale? With the introduction of nuclear arsenal, and the subsequent arms race across the globe, have we not established ourselves as the ultimate would-be suicide bomber? We have essentially strapped ourselves to the bomb, entered the conference of international relations and made the passive statement that if things don't go our way, we'll take everyone out including ourselves. And we somehow expect to have any sort of quality to our discussions? With the threat of imminent annihilation if anyone makes any sudden moves, we profess to be interested in cooperation and trust? I guess I am just completely ashamed of human traditions established in that first caveman argument. The one where they couldn't use their words, and each chose to bludgeon the other instead. Sticks and stones over words and patience.
Now we live in our 'Us vs. Them' societies, and we have only improved our language in regard to making threats. Even poets are preoccupied with self interest. Seeking to be understood, refusing to understand. Strong arming our way to our objectives with a vocabulary of ultimatums and promises of mutual self-harm. At best, we hope to form suicide pacts with other nations, because we cannot hope to survive the eventuality of our behaviors.
Welcome to my dystopia. Where we as citizens concern ourselves on a national scale with the private behaviors of the individual. Whether it be denying them equal rights, based on sexual orientation, making judgement calls on what the individual is allowed to do with their own body based on skewed-yet-absolutist ideas of morality. Government control of human appetites. Seeking to homogenize the human population.
Agonizing over the idea that your culture is not universal (as if this somehow inhibits you); perhaps you would be more well-travelled if you didn't have to worry about cultural diversity? Our over-sized brains operate in categories of 'We' and 'They', as if our person is in constant threat of being attacked by a tribe of cannibal cavemen. We draw correlations and conclusions about other cultures as being bizarre and threatening, and never acknowledge that our own behavior is quite likely despicable even by our standards.
We are destructive. Whether it be destroying the hopes and dreams of equality for minorities, the economic climate, the livelihood of the un-incorporated, the lives of innocent civilians in 3rd world countries in a quest for vengeance and/or power/oil, entire cities of human beings as we did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki... We thrive on entropy. Hence my misanthropy.
On the other side of the coin, I have such hope. And it is inspired by the immense potential I see in humanity. The untapped capacity for love and compassion, learning, acceptance, collaboration and r/evolution of ideas, sheer man-power as a resource for reshaping the planet in literal and relevant ways, selflessness, support and compromise, the ingenuity to realize dreams, philosophical planes that transcend the idea of being "just human".
We are ALL just humans, being.
Can we all start living up to our own standards, and stop holding others to them? Is that an ironic question?
My goals for myself are to come to terms with the state of humanity, and attain peace in that way. To stop blaming my situation on others, to celebrate the existence that I have on a moment-by-moment basis. I have spent so much time wishing I had a different existence, and I have taken this one for granted. When I think of overcoming my views as a misanthrope, my behaviors as an angry iconoclast... I wonder if it is not just a matter of mind over matter. I get lost in that spiral. When I start nourishing good will, I become keen to all the ill-will surrounding me. And I get overwhelmed, and resentful. Before I know it, I am harboring and spreading ill-will in the name of love. In my duality, I am no better than the fundamentalist Christians who feel compelled to save homosexuals from themselves through legislation. No better than the Islamic extremist who resents the abuse of power against humanity by America, yet in the name of ending it, they commit atrocious acts against humanity in an 'Us' vs. 'Them' mentality.
I find myself experiencing the same sense of vengeance that the U.S. felt at being attacked on our own soil, and subsequently brought the attack upon others on their own soil who had nothing to do with the event.
And so, I continue to try to reconcile my philosophies of how we should treat each other, with how I treat others. Can I accept entropy as reality? Can I then transcend the numbness of that realization to find my zen? My meditations have become centered on the duality of a state of Zentropy.
-Namaste
Evan
I don't think this makes me special, but perhaps my obsession with it does. My indefatigable quest for personal peace is thwarted by my own pervasive preoccupation with the destructive tendencies of humanity.
How can we live this way? So much intelligence used for ill. So much of society has become a cancer upon our humanity. Why are we STILL violent? As if physical domination will ever resolve discord— 'I don't like what you believe, so I am going to kill you'— it's like we are the product of a dispute between cavemen. That dispute has evolved into a feud between tribes, between nations, and between individuals who have never learned to live and let live. 150,000 years later, we have traded up our arsenal from sticks and stones (as we never did put much stock in words, which "never hurt") to nuclear arms.
We as Americans are aghast at the idea of someone strapping dynamite to their chest and blowing up a crowded street corner. Why have we not looked at our nation in macro- scale? With the introduction of nuclear arsenal, and the subsequent arms race across the globe, have we not established ourselves as the ultimate would-be suicide bomber? We have essentially strapped ourselves to the bomb, entered the conference of international relations and made the passive statement that if things don't go our way, we'll take everyone out including ourselves. And we somehow expect to have any sort of quality to our discussions? With the threat of imminent annihilation if anyone makes any sudden moves, we profess to be interested in cooperation and trust? I guess I am just completely ashamed of human traditions established in that first caveman argument. The one where they couldn't use their words, and each chose to bludgeon the other instead. Sticks and stones over words and patience.
Now we live in our 'Us vs. Them' societies, and we have only improved our language in regard to making threats. Even poets are preoccupied with self interest. Seeking to be understood, refusing to understand. Strong arming our way to our objectives with a vocabulary of ultimatums and promises of mutual self-harm. At best, we hope to form suicide pacts with other nations, because we cannot hope to survive the eventuality of our behaviors.
Welcome to my dystopia. Where we as citizens concern ourselves on a national scale with the private behaviors of the individual. Whether it be denying them equal rights, based on sexual orientation, making judgement calls on what the individual is allowed to do with their own body based on skewed-yet-absolutist ideas of morality. Government control of human appetites. Seeking to homogenize the human population.
Agonizing over the idea that your culture is not universal (as if this somehow inhibits you); perhaps you would be more well-travelled if you didn't have to worry about cultural diversity? Our over-sized brains operate in categories of 'We' and 'They', as if our person is in constant threat of being attacked by a tribe of cannibal cavemen. We draw correlations and conclusions about other cultures as being bizarre and threatening, and never acknowledge that our own behavior is quite likely despicable even by our standards.
We are destructive. Whether it be destroying the hopes and dreams of equality for minorities, the economic climate, the livelihood of the un-incorporated, the lives of innocent civilians in 3rd world countries in a quest for vengeance and/or power/oil, entire cities of human beings as we did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki... We thrive on entropy. Hence my misanthropy.
On the other side of the coin, I have such hope. And it is inspired by the immense potential I see in humanity. The untapped capacity for love and compassion, learning, acceptance, collaboration and r/evolution of ideas, sheer man-power as a resource for reshaping the planet in literal and relevant ways, selflessness, support and compromise, the ingenuity to realize dreams, philosophical planes that transcend the idea of being "just human".
We are ALL just humans, being.
Can we all start living up to our own standards, and stop holding others to them? Is that an ironic question?
My goals for myself are to come to terms with the state of humanity, and attain peace in that way. To stop blaming my situation on others, to celebrate the existence that I have on a moment-by-moment basis. I have spent so much time wishing I had a different existence, and I have taken this one for granted. When I think of overcoming my views as a misanthrope, my behaviors as an angry iconoclast... I wonder if it is not just a matter of mind over matter. I get lost in that spiral. When I start nourishing good will, I become keen to all the ill-will surrounding me. And I get overwhelmed, and resentful. Before I know it, I am harboring and spreading ill-will in the name of love. In my duality, I am no better than the fundamentalist Christians who feel compelled to save homosexuals from themselves through legislation. No better than the Islamic extremist who resents the abuse of power against humanity by America, yet in the name of ending it, they commit atrocious acts against humanity in an 'Us' vs. 'Them' mentality.
I find myself experiencing the same sense of vengeance that the U.S. felt at being attacked on our own soil, and subsequently brought the attack upon others on their own soil who had nothing to do with the event.
And so, I continue to try to reconcile my philosophies of how we should treat each other, with how I treat others. Can I accept entropy as reality? Can I then transcend the numbness of that realization to find my zen? My meditations have become centered on the duality of a state of Zentropy.
-Namaste
Evan
Friday, February 3, 2012
Irrational Love
Think of Irrational Love as the antithesis of an Irrational Fear. Some might say that the true antithesis of irrational fear would be rational love. But I am not convinced of that.
I think, perhaps a better way of defining irrational love would be to identify what sets irrational love apart from concepts like rational fear, irrational fear and rational love.
I think I'll start with rational love. Rational love incorporates a though process; the rationale part. The conclusion reached by this process defines the degree of love based on logic. logic, or rationality, necessarily corrupts pure emotion in this way.
Not to say that this makes it a bad thing. Rationality is the very balance to emotion, and each are an intrinsic human attribute. Rationale is the process of evaluating the risks of loving. It is what leads us away from abusive relationships. As much as we may love someone, we draw a line—a rational line— to protect our selves from that love. Whether it be physically, psychologically, or emotionally. I keep thinking of Vincent Vega to Jules in Pulp Fiction, when he says "I have a threshold, Jules, there is a threshold to the abuse that I will take..." Though perhaps Vincent isn't always the best example of rational thinking ;-)
Rationale is a good thing. In fact, I believe that the most part of the world believes in rational love as being an attribute of omniscient deity.
If you are inclined to belief in a God, and you attribute divinity with pure concepts, you might argue that unconditional love comes from a 'Just God', an omniscient God. But if He knows everything, He cannot help but love logically. He must conclude that, despite knowledge of all existence— past, present and future, He loves. He knows that we are 'sinners', that we will forget Him, that we will attempt to dethrone Him, to spite Him, to escape Him. Despite knowing all of these conditions, He loves us. Is it erroneous to conclude that this is Rational Love? If He is predisposed to love us, because we are somehow (metaphysically, materially, conceptually, etc.) a part of Him, then that is His reason, but it is, nonetheless, reason.
So why do I believe that Unconditional Love is the penultimate form, below Irrational Love? Is it because I somehow reject healthy boundaries, and the God-like transcendence of those boundaries? Yes, and no.
A core concept in Zen Buddhism, is that of enlightenment: It tells us that, in any given instant, we may find clarity. When we do this, the universe will speak to us, and we may understand it completely. The universe is constantly speaking to us, but we don't hear it because of our own thoughts. We hear what we want to hear. This is true of our relationships with others, and it is true of our relationship with the cosmos. We are so convinced that we are perceiving reality, that we are distracted BY our perceptions FROM the reality that surrounds us.
Can enlightenment be consciously sought? Yes. But it can also come upon us in an instant. I personally feel that the only way this can happen, is if we are not already too tied to our ideas of what the universe will say. Stating that may very well make me a hypocrite, but such is the plight of the unenlightened. I am working through my delusions, and I cannot fairly claim to be further along than anyone else (I don't think of it as a linear process, but perhaps that is a topic for another time).
What does it have to do with rationale? I think we can agree that rational fear is a logically-justified compulsion, and not much more needs to be said about it.
So what does this have to do with love?
I think I have encountered irrational love. And it is a beautiful thing. Have you ever seen someone with an irrational fear when they encounter the object of their fear? Perhaps you have one yourself. Irrational fears are not any normal fear, they are most often hilarious to everyone but the one experiencing the fear. Peanut butter? Canaries? Pickles? These are some of the things that send people screaming and flailing, and most would agree that it is either silly or sad, but at any rate, irrational. It is not a beautiful thing— definitely not to the one with fear.
Irrational love, however, is contagious. Fear is contagious to some extent, but Love is consuming.
I hope everyone has the chance to feel complete and utter love that they do not need to understand in order to know. Rational love would be something that can be identified for its qualities, but irrational love can only be felt.
I have purposely avoided mentioning the nature of this love, because I think most who read this will do so with a preconceived notion of what love means. You know, "Love is what a mother feels for her child, or what a maiden feels for her knight, or what God feels for mankind." sure, but these are examples of rational love. I know you already have, but think about it ;-)
Irrational love possesses your soul for no reason at all. Again, I'm not talking about 65-year marriages, or self-sacrificing Gods. These are rationally justified. Irrational love consumes you, and needs no explanation.
Should I just give you an example?
watch this little segment from an Ellen Degeneres episode.
I hope you aren't too self-conscious to allow the contagiousness run its course, through your whole Being.
Written and posted from my Android phone. Thanks for reading!
I think, perhaps a better way of defining irrational love would be to identify what sets irrational love apart from concepts like rational fear, irrational fear and rational love.
I think I'll start with rational love. Rational love incorporates a though process; the rationale part. The conclusion reached by this process defines the degree of love based on logic. logic, or rationality, necessarily corrupts pure emotion in this way.
Not to say that this makes it a bad thing. Rationality is the very balance to emotion, and each are an intrinsic human attribute. Rationale is the process of evaluating the risks of loving. It is what leads us away from abusive relationships. As much as we may love someone, we draw a line—a rational line— to protect our selves from that love. Whether it be physically, psychologically, or emotionally. I keep thinking of Vincent Vega to Jules in Pulp Fiction, when he says "I have a threshold, Jules, there is a threshold to the abuse that I will take..." Though perhaps Vincent isn't always the best example of rational thinking ;-)
Rationale is a good thing. In fact, I believe that the most part of the world believes in rational love as being an attribute of omniscient deity.
If you are inclined to belief in a God, and you attribute divinity with pure concepts, you might argue that unconditional love comes from a 'Just God', an omniscient God. But if He knows everything, He cannot help but love logically. He must conclude that, despite knowledge of all existence— past, present and future, He loves. He knows that we are 'sinners', that we will forget Him, that we will attempt to dethrone Him, to spite Him, to escape Him. Despite knowing all of these conditions, He loves us. Is it erroneous to conclude that this is Rational Love? If He is predisposed to love us, because we are somehow (metaphysically, materially, conceptually, etc.) a part of Him, then that is His reason, but it is, nonetheless, reason.
So why do I believe that Unconditional Love is the penultimate form, below Irrational Love? Is it because I somehow reject healthy boundaries, and the God-like transcendence of those boundaries? Yes, and no.
A core concept in Zen Buddhism, is that of enlightenment: It tells us that, in any given instant, we may find clarity. When we do this, the universe will speak to us, and we may understand it completely. The universe is constantly speaking to us, but we don't hear it because of our own thoughts. We hear what we want to hear. This is true of our relationships with others, and it is true of our relationship with the cosmos. We are so convinced that we are perceiving reality, that we are distracted BY our perceptions FROM the reality that surrounds us.
Can enlightenment be consciously sought? Yes. But it can also come upon us in an instant. I personally feel that the only way this can happen, is if we are not already too tied to our ideas of what the universe will say. Stating that may very well make me a hypocrite, but such is the plight of the unenlightened. I am working through my delusions, and I cannot fairly claim to be further along than anyone else (I don't think of it as a linear process, but perhaps that is a topic for another time).
What does it have to do with rationale? I think we can agree that rational fear is a logically-justified compulsion, and not much more needs to be said about it.
So what does this have to do with love?
I think I have encountered irrational love. And it is a beautiful thing. Have you ever seen someone with an irrational fear when they encounter the object of their fear? Perhaps you have one yourself. Irrational fears are not any normal fear, they are most often hilarious to everyone but the one experiencing the fear. Peanut butter? Canaries? Pickles? These are some of the things that send people screaming and flailing, and most would agree that it is either silly or sad, but at any rate, irrational. It is not a beautiful thing— definitely not to the one with fear.
Irrational love, however, is contagious. Fear is contagious to some extent, but Love is consuming.
I hope everyone has the chance to feel complete and utter love that they do not need to understand in order to know. Rational love would be something that can be identified for its qualities, but irrational love can only be felt.
I have purposely avoided mentioning the nature of this love, because I think most who read this will do so with a preconceived notion of what love means. You know, "Love is what a mother feels for her child, or what a maiden feels for her knight, or what God feels for mankind." sure, but these are examples of rational love. I know you already have, but think about it ;-)
Irrational love possesses your soul for no reason at all. Again, I'm not talking about 65-year marriages, or self-sacrificing Gods. These are rationally justified. Irrational love consumes you, and needs no explanation.
Should I just give you an example?
watch this little segment from an Ellen Degeneres episode.
I hope you aren't too self-conscious to allow the contagiousness run its course, through your whole Being.
Written and posted from my Android phone. Thanks for reading!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
A Log on Fire
Another day, Another log on the proverbial fire. Or, to be literal (which I feel compelled to be, as of this writing), another log on my blog. Welcome, I hope you find my camp agreeable.
I want to explore about an epiphany I had while trudging through the snow on the way home from school. I have recently become fixed on setting the record straight. We all encounter this, I think, on occasion; whether it's a grade that was not recorded, whether you were given incorrect change, misquoted or (as was my case) misunderstood.
As I was thinking on this "injustice", and how I was wronged yet again when trying to right myself, it occurred to me does it really matter?
Of course I am inclined to say "yes, it matters!". I'm not one to make mountains out of molehills. Given the gravity of the matter, the consequence of this injustice which was weighing on my mind wasn't exactly something I could just shrug off. Yes, it mattered. That was the whole problem though; it ONLY mattered to me.
And what all was said? "Doesn't matter". Except that you should know that I feel it immensely important that I am not misunderstood. And that I was told that it "doesn't matter" if I am or have been misunderstood. And also, that my inclination to demand understanding is a symptom of my tendency to be controlling. Does it matter if this person is wrong?
Then it occurred to me. My need to be understood is not one that can be met by anyone. My truth is of no consequence to anyone else in the world.
Bear with me, I'm not about to get impractically philosophical, or forlorn. This is actually a very sober thought, and may be forlorn by many people's definition, but it is realizations like this that inspire self-improvement.
My need to be understood may very well be born of a disposition to be controlling. But it is delusional to seek to be understood entirely. True understanding never happens between two people, because we have an imperfect language system. Every emotion, every thought, is only understood in a general, ballpark sense.
This "ballpark understanding" may suffice in 99% of our interactions, because it's not of vital importance that we are able to convey EXACTLY what we sense or think. But there are those times that we need to be understood. And it's just tough luck, we are unable to convey it (completely) by any means.
The second part of that epiphany "My truth is of no consequence to any one else in the world.", requires that I define what I mean by Truth. This thought may be the real epiphany.
Truth is this abstraction that almost everyone takes (or mistakes) for a very definite (if intangible) reality. But there's a difference between Truth and Reality. Truth is everywhere, it is in everyone. We all have our truth, we all speak our truth and we would all like to think that we know the truth.
But "truth be told", truth is not reality—not necessarily anyway. I've known this for a long time now. Someone can tell the truth without telling an actuality.
Most think that the "Truth" is the be-all, end-all argument—something against which all else can be weighed and measured. but there are multiple truths, and no one is more correct than another. Truth is subjective and elusive, but we somehow believe it is a concrete reality.
Concrete "reality" on the other hand, isn't given due credit. Reality's plight is actually (suddenly a weighted word to use) the opposite of Truth's; it is very apparent, often tangible and harsh. Unforgiving. But reality is often questioned more than truth. Especially when the question of truth comes up.
So.
I have a truth, and I want for someone to understand and acknowledge it.
Instead, I am told of a reality.
I reject this reality, certain that the truth is more important.
But suddenly I realize, reality is truer than truth.
Say my truth is that I am a kind, caring person. This truth can be shared by others too.
But what if my truth is challenged? Someone else's truth is that I am, indeed, NOT a kind, caring person. Now we must assume that this claim has a basis for whoever has made it. If this person says "you were unkind to me" can I really say they're wrong? Their truth is that I was inconsiderate, can I trump this with my declared truth: "I'm a kind, caring person"? No. The reality is that I have been unkind, and uncaring. And it is of no consequence to them or anyone else if I believe differently.
I'm always long-winded, repetitious and, no doubt, boring. So I'll stop here and leave you to ponder it yourself. Let someone show you what is real, because your sense of truth is little to go on.
I want to explore about an epiphany I had while trudging through the snow on the way home from school. I have recently become fixed on setting the record straight. We all encounter this, I think, on occasion; whether it's a grade that was not recorded, whether you were given incorrect change, misquoted or (as was my case) misunderstood.
As I was thinking on this "injustice", and how I was wronged yet again when trying to right myself, it occurred to me does it really matter?
Of course I am inclined to say "yes, it matters!". I'm not one to make mountains out of molehills. Given the gravity of the matter, the consequence of this injustice which was weighing on my mind wasn't exactly something I could just shrug off. Yes, it mattered. That was the whole problem though; it ONLY mattered to me.
And what all was said? "Doesn't matter". Except that you should know that I feel it immensely important that I am not misunderstood. And that I was told that it "doesn't matter" if I am or have been misunderstood. And also, that my inclination to demand understanding is a symptom of my tendency to be controlling. Does it matter if this person is wrong?
Then it occurred to me. My need to be understood is not one that can be met by anyone. My truth is of no consequence to anyone else in the world.
Bear with me, I'm not about to get impractically philosophical, or forlorn. This is actually a very sober thought, and may be forlorn by many people's definition, but it is realizations like this that inspire self-improvement.
My need to be understood may very well be born of a disposition to be controlling. But it is delusional to seek to be understood entirely. True understanding never happens between two people, because we have an imperfect language system. Every emotion, every thought, is only understood in a general, ballpark sense.
This "ballpark understanding" may suffice in 99% of our interactions, because it's not of vital importance that we are able to convey EXACTLY what we sense or think. But there are those times that we need to be understood. And it's just tough luck, we are unable to convey it (completely) by any means.
The second part of that epiphany "My truth is of no consequence to any one else in the world.", requires that I define what I mean by Truth. This thought may be the real epiphany.
Truth is this abstraction that almost everyone takes (or mistakes) for a very definite (if intangible) reality. But there's a difference between Truth and Reality. Truth is everywhere, it is in everyone. We all have our truth, we all speak our truth and we would all like to think that we know the truth.
But "truth be told", truth is not reality—not necessarily anyway. I've known this for a long time now. Someone can tell the truth without telling an actuality.
Most think that the "Truth" is the be-all, end-all argument—something against which all else can be weighed and measured. but there are multiple truths, and no one is more correct than another. Truth is subjective and elusive, but we somehow believe it is a concrete reality.
Concrete "reality" on the other hand, isn't given due credit. Reality's plight is actually (suddenly a weighted word to use) the opposite of Truth's; it is very apparent, often tangible and harsh. Unforgiving. But reality is often questioned more than truth. Especially when the question of truth comes up.
So.
I have a truth, and I want for someone to understand and acknowledge it.
Instead, I am told of a reality.
I reject this reality, certain that the truth is more important.
But suddenly I realize, reality is truer than truth.
Say my truth is that I am a kind, caring person. This truth can be shared by others too.
But what if my truth is challenged? Someone else's truth is that I am, indeed, NOT a kind, caring person. Now we must assume that this claim has a basis for whoever has made it. If this person says "you were unkind to me" can I really say they're wrong? Their truth is that I was inconsiderate, can I trump this with my declared truth: "I'm a kind, caring person"? No. The reality is that I have been unkind, and uncaring. And it is of no consequence to them or anyone else if I believe differently.
I'm always long-winded, repetitious and, no doubt, boring. So I'll stop here and leave you to ponder it yourself. Let someone show you what is real, because your sense of truth is little to go on.
becoming
cease your cries
dry your eyes
rise
sow your dreams
rip life's seams
gleam
make a choice
raise your voice
rejoice
take no abuse
make no excuse
play fast and loose
do no one harm
love to disarm
charm
take time to listen
just listen
listen
seek to serve
have nerve
observe
seek to understand
observe firsthand
another land
never cease
to make peace
catch and release
search your soul
make a new goal
learn to console
make a checklist
don't resist
exist
share what you think
exchange a wink
share a drink
share someone's load
share your abode
share the road
open your heart
make art
impart
mind your mental health
be mindful of self
share the wealth
Friday, July 29, 2011
Final Theory
I'm sure, if you've talked to me philosophically in the past two or three years, you've heard one of my rants. A popular one to blog about is how the human experience boils down to a dilemma between self-interest, and social obligation.
Chances are, you've heard me talk about semiotics, and the subjectivity of sign systems. How we are unable to communicate absolutes.
If you've talked to me in the past year, you've probably heard me talk about the natural world, and modes of perception. You have, no doubt, heard me use the sine wave to describe human communication, thought patterns, states of being/mentalities, and others. "It's all about wavelengths".
Yes and no.
I have recently had the experience of observing the natural world in wave form. Never you mind what this entails. I have observed the universal laws of nature in their own right, without sign systems to represent them. I have felt the mathematics of it all, so to speak.
The thing is, wavelengths are a mathematical interpretation, and therefore a sign system which just will not suffice. In the system of sine waves, we recognize a 0-value. but I'm here to tell you that this theoretical "zero" does not exist in the laws of nature.
Let's say you want to tell me how tall you are. You would probably use imperial units of measure. let's say you are exactly 6 feet tall. These units of measure are a sign system which would, in most instances of human interaction, be determined to have a shared meaning. However, the fact is, that there is no agreement on what constitutes these units of measure.
Well how much is 6 feet? I ask.
It is 72 inches.
How much is an inch?
It is 0.08333333 ft.
Very well, there is a defined relationship between the two. But what is an inch constituted of? how is an inch broken down?
we would continue in this fashion, down through millimeters, micrometers, nanometers, etc. Until we came arrived at atomic structure.
What is an atom?
Traditionally, an atom is something which cannot be broken down further. But modern science has shown us that the atom is made up of yet smaller particles, therefore, it can be broken down further, by dividing the nucleus into protons and neutrons. These, in turn, may be broken down into units of measure, varieties of quarks. which can also be measured. As it happens, 1 yoctometer, is one/one-hundred thousanth (1/100,000) of the diameter of a proton or neutron.
But what makes up a yoctometer?
I'm sorry if this whole thing insults your intelligence, the point is, our arbitrary sign systems can continue to come up with signs to represent the size of something, but on an infinitesimal scale, there is no way to ever quantify the universe, as every quantification would have to be qualified with a unit of measure, and so on.
How is it relevant? Is it truly necessary to measure beyond the cells of the human body? In this mortal realm, isn't what determines everything else we know or do, based upon the question 'is it alive or dead?" If it is alive, then all is well. And if it is dead, then 'well' becomes irrelevant to the deceased. In this case, shouldn't we need only consider the individual himself? living or dead?
Let's see. What does the word "individual" mean? The root isn't that hard to sniff out, it's related to the theory of atomos, or atoms. It is indivisible. incapable of being divided. since we know that you and I are capable of being divided into smaller parts, then we know that we are not individuals. Then who are we? Are we the sum of our collective, infinitesimal matter? but what is that matter? what about beyond that? If we cannot conceive of the infinite measure of "matter", then should it matter?
Does it matter so much that the Hadron Collider is a danger to our existence? Maybe. What if we understood the universe completely? Is it possible to do with science? A system which operates on classification and measurment? In this paradox, even the quantum realm is given limits. A finite system attempting to explain infinity.
I believe that the true nature of the universe is something that cannot be discovered with microscopes. Nor can it be explained "a man in the sky created it" simply because it is a claim as unknowable as infinity. No, there is definitely more to be discovered than what constitutes a hadron particle, or what constitutes that which constitutes a hadron particle. If mankind were truly designed by a god, we would possess the ability to comprehend that god. If we we comprehended god, then we would understand what god is made up of. And what gave him the capacity to design the universe. If god created the universe, then he created the laws on which it functions, and if he created the laws on which it functions, then he must understand them completely. But then again, he would have to understand the ability of his own existence prior to that of the universe. What you end up with is infinite regress. Unless that paradox is resolved, you and I are every bit as capable as any god, which isn't much at all.
Signs fail. measurement is a system of signs. If you want to understand it, try not "measuring" it at all.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
A review of Sound
I had an assignment to listen to a performance by an orchestra of Ravel's Bolero. since I don't really have an ear for critical, or analytical listening, I decided to approach it as an English assignment; Enjoy.
I should probably mention that I am partially deaf in my right ear. And, as it happens, I am just getting over an ear infection in my left ear. So, to be honest, I listened to this 3 times without being able to hear the difference between the first several instruments; I have never really been able to identify timbre within a given family of instruments, besides guitar (i.e. acoustic vs classical). I finally found a filming of a recording of Bolero by the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which helped me see the different instruments.
Link here: http://vimeo.com/7881392 (performance starts around 11min 30sec)
Obviously I knew from the list of instruments in the assignment description that Flute was first, but like I said, I cannot tell the difference between most woodwinds. I was even tricked by the video, wherein a flautist appears to be playing his flute (although he may in fact just be keeping time or something) but the camera then pans to reveal the clarinetist is actually the one playing. The instruments that stood out to me, as it turns out, were the switches between instrument families (with the exception of the Saxophone, which I have only just learned is not a member of the brass family).
The Soprano saxophone is recognizable to me because of my grandmother's extensive collection of Kenny G (I don't think I ever heard her listen to anything but Kenny G and Richard Clayderman). But, I fear I lack a vocabulary to describe its tone. Except that it reminds me of the soundtrack on the animated version of "The Wind and the Willows".
The Piccolo always surprises me at how very high-pitched it is. I was able to recognize it when it finally came in, but I actually mistook the second entry of the flute for it, because i forget how very piercing the its tone is.
The next instrument I was able to recognize was the Trombone, which is unique because of its "slide" tone, where the notes are not so much/always "jumped" between. it reminds me of an elephant's—none in particular—trumpeting sound. It also has a very wide range that starts to sound like a tuba toward the end of its solo.
Lastly, the strings are recognizable because of their unique style, which is a mixture of quick, clippy notes and notes that are held out longer. They also have a wid versatility in volume, and the vibrato is also characteristic.
The mood of the piece make me think of a cadence for a militia. The drums feel like a marching beat, and the piccolo always makes me think of civil war movies, though it is more relaxed than a marching cadence.
The tempo remains the same for the majority of the piece, and the various different instruments remind me of the idea of sampling, or demonstration. As if the composer were trying to pick the right instrument to compose the piece for, and held auditions, to which all kinds of anthropomorphized instruments show up, and sort of try to one up each other in the rehearsal room, eventually forming gangs based on their familial ties, and ultimately ending with a battle.
The intensity builds dramatically toward the end of the piece. but it is a very subtle build in the rest of it. When the groups all come in, and the volume increases, is the first time that I, as a listener, become aware that it has gradually been building up to that point.
I should probably mention that I am partially deaf in my right ear. And, as it happens, I am just getting over an ear infection in my left ear. So, to be honest, I listened to this 3 times without being able to hear the difference between the first several instruments; I have never really been able to identify timbre within a given family of instruments, besides guitar (i.e. acoustic vs classical). I finally found a filming of a recording of Bolero by the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which helped me see the different instruments.
Link here: http://vimeo.com/7881392 (performance starts around 11min 30sec)
Obviously I knew from the list of instruments in the assignment description that Flute was first, but like I said, I cannot tell the difference between most woodwinds. I was even tricked by the video, wherein a flautist appears to be playing his flute (although he may in fact just be keeping time or something) but the camera then pans to reveal the clarinetist is actually the one playing. The instruments that stood out to me, as it turns out, were the switches between instrument families (with the exception of the Saxophone, which I have only just learned is not a member of the brass family).
The Soprano saxophone is recognizable to me because of my grandmother's extensive collection of Kenny G (I don't think I ever heard her listen to anything but Kenny G and Richard Clayderman). But, I fear I lack a vocabulary to describe its tone. Except that it reminds me of the soundtrack on the animated version of "The Wind and the Willows".
The Piccolo always surprises me at how very high-pitched it is. I was able to recognize it when it finally came in, but I actually mistook the second entry of the flute for it, because i forget how very piercing the its tone is.
The next instrument I was able to recognize was the Trombone, which is unique because of its "slide" tone, where the notes are not so much/always "jumped" between. it reminds me of an elephant's—none in particular—trumpeting sound. It also has a very wide range that starts to sound like a tuba toward the end of its solo.
Lastly, the strings are recognizable because of their unique style, which is a mixture of quick, clippy notes and notes that are held out longer. They also have a wid versatility in volume, and the vibrato is also characteristic.
The mood of the piece make me think of a cadence for a militia. The drums feel like a marching beat, and the piccolo always makes me think of civil war movies, though it is more relaxed than a marching cadence.
The tempo remains the same for the majority of the piece, and the various different instruments remind me of the idea of sampling, or demonstration. As if the composer were trying to pick the right instrument to compose the piece for, and held auditions, to which all kinds of anthropomorphized instruments show up, and sort of try to one up each other in the rehearsal room, eventually forming gangs based on their familial ties, and ultimately ending with a battle.
The intensity builds dramatically toward the end of the piece. but it is a very subtle build in the rest of it. When the groups all come in, and the volume increases, is the first time that I, as a listener, become aware that it has gradually been building up to that point.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Dividing Camels
A man in Arabia died, leaving his estate—consisting of 17 camels— to his three sons. Before passing, he told them that it was his will that the eldest receive 1/2 of the camels, the second eldest to receive 1/3rd of the camels, and the youngest to receive 1/9th of the camels.
Upon convening to divide their inheritance between them, the three sons were perplexed with the dying words of their father; 17 camels are not divisible by 2, nor by 3, nor by 9. They wished to honor their father's last wish, but it appeared that their father had made a mistake.
When it seemed that no one could be allotted their rightful inheritance, they brought their problem before an old woman whom they all trusted to make a fair judgement of how they should proceed. However, she was also unable to find a fair way to divide the 17 camels amongst them. This old woman had a good heart, and seeing that she could not help them otherwise, she insisted that they allow her to give them her own camel.
The brothers accepted reluctantly, and again began to discuss their plight. Now, with one more camel to divide they sat down to do the math once again.
One half of the 18 camels would go to the eldest son. He took 9 camels.
One third of the 18 camels would go to the second eldest son. He took 6 camels.
One ninth of the 18 camels would go to the youngest son. He took 2 camels.
The remaining camel? They returned it to the old woman.
Upon convening to divide their inheritance between them, the three sons were perplexed with the dying words of their father; 17 camels are not divisible by 2, nor by 3, nor by 9. They wished to honor their father's last wish, but it appeared that their father had made a mistake.
When it seemed that no one could be allotted their rightful inheritance, they brought their problem before an old woman whom they all trusted to make a fair judgement of how they should proceed. However, she was also unable to find a fair way to divide the 17 camels amongst them. This old woman had a good heart, and seeing that she could not help them otherwise, she insisted that they allow her to give them her own camel.
The brothers accepted reluctantly, and again began to discuss their plight. Now, with one more camel to divide they sat down to do the math once again.
One half of the 18 camels would go to the eldest son. He took 9 camels.
One third of the 18 camels would go to the second eldest son. He took 6 camels.
One ninth of the 18 camels would go to the youngest son. He took 2 camels.
The remaining camel? They returned it to the old woman.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
"To thine own self be true"
This posting is going to be different.
I'm going to be different.
I realized recently that I am very discontented with who I am; I am not aligned with my own values. Sure, sure, you've heard me rant about it before on here, how I am continuously trying to weed out the things about myself that I don't like. Overcoming selfishness has been a big theme in my life for the past few years. I have this theory that just about every breakdown in communication, every impasse, every altercation, comes from selfishness. If we were all a little less selfish— if we could see outside ourselves for a moment (which is immensely difficult in the moment, granted), I think we would all find that life is less of a struggle. While we sit by—taking it easy, nursing our own aches— there is someone sliding from their vantage, dangling on a precipice, calling out for help.
The truth is, several months ago, I made an unconscious decision to be completely selfish. It wasn't decided in those terms... which is exactly what let the attitude settle in. The thought was something like this 'I am tired'. And slowly, as occasions would arise, I would identify what was making me so tired.
'Tired of meeting expectations', 'tired of being let down', 'tired of being accountable', 'tired of taking the fall', 'tired of hoping and praying', 'tired of pretense','tired of sharing...'
Then I came to the conclusion that I just was too tired to care. So I stopped.
And now I have become disgusted with who I am. I am self-indulgent, judgmental, and non-compassionate, self-serving, lazy and unmotivated.
As I write this, I am watching the first rays of dawn trinkle through my window, and I have yet to sleep. I spent the entire night tinkering with my camera, trying to perfect a new technique. Wait— not the entire night. I also set 3 new speed records on Minesweeper. I am Evan's complete embarrassment.
So now I commit to getting back to that place I was at, and striving to attain that place I want to be. I worry people when I say this, but I honestly feel that time is a factor in fulfilling my dreams. As I enrolled in spring classes, I came to the realization that I was committing 4 more months of my life to the pursuit of a degree that I don't actually feel I will have much time to "use" before I die. Sounds melodramatic even to me, but this inkling comes from a tried and trusted sense that I've never really been able to explain.
All the more reason for me to be the person I want to be.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Here We Go Again
It's that time again.
I am ready to spin the globe.
It's a rule: You must cover your eyes when you spin the globe. I want to cover my eyes, plug my nose, clench my jaw til my ears ring, clench my fists til my fingers numb, hold my breath til I'm bursting... and spin that globe.
Sound overly-dramatic?
I do catch myself doing all of the above, though perhaps not all at the same time. I am so frustrated. I mean frustrated in the sense that my plans are at a standstill.
Cover my eyes because I'm surrounded by evidence of failures, and to see in my mind's eye where I want to be.
Plug my nose because I'm surrounded by the pungent odor of dead dreams, relationships, stagnant projects, and a future in waste management.
My ears, because every song reminds me of a conversation, a moment, a laugh, etc. I CANNOT stay here.
Clenched fists? because, I suppose, despite all my aspirations of Zen, I am still full of bad energy.
Holding my breath is one way I can more clearly envision my goals. I've been living with myself for 26 years, and I always manage to blunder my dreams. Sometimes, I like to pretend I'm not right there, breathing down my neck, waiting to ruin my plans.
Is 26 too late to start completely over?
/rant
I am ready to spin the globe.
It's a rule: You must cover your eyes when you spin the globe. I want to cover my eyes, plug my nose, clench my jaw til my ears ring, clench my fists til my fingers numb, hold my breath til I'm bursting... and spin that globe.
Sound overly-dramatic?
I do catch myself doing all of the above, though perhaps not all at the same time. I am so frustrated. I mean frustrated in the sense that my plans are at a standstill.
Cover my eyes because I'm surrounded by evidence of failures, and to see in my mind's eye where I want to be.
Plug my nose because I'm surrounded by the pungent odor of dead dreams, relationships, stagnant projects, and a future in waste management.
My ears, because every song reminds me of a conversation, a moment, a laugh, etc. I CANNOT stay here.
Clenched fists? because, I suppose, despite all my aspirations of Zen, I am still full of bad energy.
Holding my breath is one way I can more clearly envision my goals. I've been living with myself for 26 years, and I always manage to blunder my dreams. Sometimes, I like to pretend I'm not right there, breathing down my neck, waiting to ruin my plans.
Is 26 too late to start completely over?
/rant
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
So... Installment art.
I have an idea for the most beautifully awesome installment art.
But I would need a place to put it, most preferably indoors. It would potentially be 3-4 stories tall, and I can't even begin to estimate cost. But man, I would love to make it a reality. Obviously, as an artist, I am too paranoid to actually let my concept out into the unknown universe. but I think this particular piece of art would actually be the art of aesthetics, and synergy. Utilizing the talents of several different artisans, from painters, to wood workers, to audio design, to textiles... I would love to make it happen.
So where does one start in looking for sponsorship and "hosting" of installment art? I would probably be able to find all the artists myself. and get an engineer on board to make my vision possible....
But I would need a place to put it, most preferably indoors. It would potentially be 3-4 stories tall, and I can't even begin to estimate cost. But man, I would love to make it a reality. Obviously, as an artist, I am too paranoid to actually let my concept out into the unknown universe. but I think this particular piece of art would actually be the art of aesthetics, and synergy. Utilizing the talents of several different artisans, from painters, to wood workers, to audio design, to textiles... I would love to make it happen.
So where does one start in looking for sponsorship and "hosting" of installment art? I would probably be able to find all the artists myself. and get an engineer on board to make my vision possible....
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The World is Floating
You know that sensation when you try and reach a high shelf? rarely used muscles are stretched, and you become aware that you've pretty much been living at eye-level for the past who-knows-how-long.
I haven't had that sensation in a long time.
When you think about it, the world turns indifferently of whether or not you think about it.
I can't think of anything to write, but I feel like writing. Strike that. I want to write about something else but I can't bring myself to do so--hence, word-vomit.
I'm thinking about making a to-do list. If I were to type it up, it would read as follows.
1. clean my room
2. do my laundry
3. sell all my valuables
4. find some prospect for the next couple of months (cruise to the bahamas, chill.)
5. plan my next move from there.
My thoughts are these: If I am going to do any sort of off-shore sailing any time soon, I'm going to have to jump in with both feet. I could plan and budget for a boat that meets my needs, but I know myself too well... 1 of 2 things could come of that: Either I would become impatient and purchase a boat that doesn't fit my needs, but fits my budget and availability (NOW) requirements; or I will NEVER be able to afford the boat I want because I will always hold out for something a little better, and consequentially a little more expensive. I will be an old man before I ever get to live my dream, and that, my friends, is quite simply a nightmare to me.
I came across (okay, I launched a determined search for..,) a guy who sails from Ft Lauderdale to the Bahamas and the Key Islands about 3 times per season, and takes on a new crew of experienced and unexperienced sailors each time. Each voyage is about 15 days long, and he charges about $700 per trip + food. I'm tempted to sell my meager possessions and go on two of those expeditions. Maybe even just one would do. If I were able to, during the voyage/stay, make connections with someone else doing something similar (or possibly just someone short-handed, willing to take me on) I would be thrilled to do it. Also, at that price I am getting 15 days of actual sailing at sea, as opposed to a 7-day cruise, where I don't really get the feeling that I'm on the water, so much as on a building surrounded by water... :)
Mostly, I am thinking that the likelihood that I will get experience, and eventually a boat, is drastically increased if I'm actually AT sea, surrounded by people who know people and places.
I just have to make my mind up.
:)
I haven't had that sensation in a long time.
When you think about it, the world turns indifferently of whether or not you think about it.
I can't think of anything to write, but I feel like writing. Strike that. I want to write about something else but I can't bring myself to do so--hence, word-vomit.
I'm thinking about making a to-do list. If I were to type it up, it would read as follows.
1. clean my room
2. do my laundry
3. sell all my valuables
4. find some prospect for the next couple of months (cruise to the bahamas, chill.)
5. plan my next move from there.
My thoughts are these: If I am going to do any sort of off-shore sailing any time soon, I'm going to have to jump in with both feet. I could plan and budget for a boat that meets my needs, but I know myself too well... 1 of 2 things could come of that: Either I would become impatient and purchase a boat that doesn't fit my needs, but fits my budget and availability (NOW) requirements; or I will NEVER be able to afford the boat I want because I will always hold out for something a little better, and consequentially a little more expensive. I will be an old man before I ever get to live my dream, and that, my friends, is quite simply a nightmare to me.
I came across (okay, I launched a determined search for..,) a guy who sails from Ft Lauderdale to the Bahamas and the Key Islands about 3 times per season, and takes on a new crew of experienced and unexperienced sailors each time. Each voyage is about 15 days long, and he charges about $700 per trip + food. I'm tempted to sell my meager possessions and go on two of those expeditions. Maybe even just one would do. If I were able to, during the voyage/stay, make connections with someone else doing something similar (or possibly just someone short-handed, willing to take me on) I would be thrilled to do it. Also, at that price I am getting 15 days of actual sailing at sea, as opposed to a 7-day cruise, where I don't really get the feeling that I'm on the water, so much as on a building surrounded by water... :)
Mostly, I am thinking that the likelihood that I will get experience, and eventually a boat, is drastically increased if I'm actually AT sea, surrounded by people who know people and places.
I just have to make my mind up.
:)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Final Report
05/21/97
Moved into new address. So far, so good. Unpacking is slow-going; I can't be too loud, the downstairs neighbors are very suspicious of me, and I don't care to get off to a bad start. They are possibly Jewish—I cannot say for certain. They only poked their noses out when I began bringing in boxes. All in all, I think this place will be good for me. It's a quiet neighborhood.
05/22/97
Day 2 in new apartment. I got an early start on unpacking. Need to get those little wall adapters for power cables with ground prongs... at least this place has electricity at all. The previous tenant never had the power turned off... very suspicious. There is a grocery store on the corner, but I don't think I'll shop there. It seems too much of a community spirit there. I can shop at the super-mart on #### street. Returned to find a plate of brownies from my new neighbors down the hall, the "Pulsiphers". Took them inside but immediate disposed of them. Upon reflection, I should have just left them on the floor outside my door. I hope everyone isn't this friendly.
05/23/97
Basically Completely moved in, only to find I may have to move yet again: there is a man moving into a facing apartment across the street, one floor higher than mine. It is definitely not the same man as before. I noticed him last night while I was listening to my music (through headphones, obviously. Some of the other tenants here still don't know I've moved in.) When I suddenly felt the urge to look out my window. Sure enough, he was unloading boxes from the back of a Volvo 760. It is blue, I think it is an '83. I'm going on best guesses because I cannot, at this point, go to he library. At any rate, it seems to be burning oil (judging by the sooty back hatch, above the tailpipe). Back to New Guy: He only had one load of boxes. He then parked his car in the parking garage on ####, Which is still within view, he must not suspect I was watching. I turned off the lights in my apartment and "made my bed". I sat on the floor in the kitchen for about 3 hours and sure enough, he came to window and looked out. He is a tall man, probably in his 40's. He wears glasses. When the opportunity came, I moved to the bathroom. I will sleep here tonight.
05/24/97
Bright morning, loud in the streets. Monday. The New Guy gets an early start to his day. He left around 5:30AM. I am making plans to "one-up" him when he returns. First, I have to go shopping. Stockpile enough to last me 1 month. I will set up for surveillance on the roof. 6:36PM. Procured enough sustenance to last 3 weeks. New Guy arrived at about (exactly) 4:50PM. spent most of his time in the living area, he didn't draw back the curtains like he did last night. He left at 6:21PM. I continued to watch, in case he was trying to fake me out. Hopefully the next few days will establish a pattern that I may work around.
05/25/97
New Guy left his "home" at the same time today. Not surprised. I have made a cache of provisions and weapons, as well as a safe place to store my documents. I have an uneasy feeling about this New Guy. He seems so unconcerned.
05/26/97
If I must move again, I will leave everything here and start over completely. I will have to move further this time. I will disclose the new location as per enemy evasion protocol...
05/26/97
3120177 170111 017 1 111177 01774 12350120 1774 1773556935 117 969312 5003. 46113 12365017 70 83713113 1774 7617 111177 1776153 6 1770113 50017.
052797
57641179 0117 03 51947. 5617 51112111113 3012 680117 9 0645 1111740117 736111179 570537.
053097
51711671017 465 83501773 0359312673. 111177 76153 173553556124 177365111235 70 9123113177 569711123. 012117151179 7075 03 3711105 117 91239612671017.
060197
680117 70 56111 033 1774 7337 46170. 111177 74317 50175111773 46170 111174 *12310*
060397
5191713156177 7055 03 87000. 573391179
Moved into new address. So far, so good. Unpacking is slow-going; I can't be too loud, the downstairs neighbors are very suspicious of me, and I don't care to get off to a bad start. They are possibly Jewish—I cannot say for certain. They only poked their noses out when I began bringing in boxes. All in all, I think this place will be good for me. It's a quiet neighborhood.
05/22/97
Day 2 in new apartment. I got an early start on unpacking. Need to get those little wall adapters for power cables with ground prongs... at least this place has electricity at all. The previous tenant never had the power turned off... very suspicious. There is a grocery store on the corner, but I don't think I'll shop there. It seems too much of a community spirit there. I can shop at the super-mart on #### street. Returned to find a plate of brownies from my new neighbors down the hall, the "Pulsiphers". Took them inside but immediate disposed of them. Upon reflection, I should have just left them on the floor outside my door. I hope everyone isn't this friendly.
05/23/97
Basically Completely moved in, only to find I may have to move yet again: there is a man moving into a facing apartment across the street, one floor higher than mine. It is definitely not the same man as before. I noticed him last night while I was listening to my music (through headphones, obviously. Some of the other tenants here still don't know I've moved in.) When I suddenly felt the urge to look out my window. Sure enough, he was unloading boxes from the back of a Volvo 760. It is blue, I think it is an '83. I'm going on best guesses because I cannot, at this point, go to he library. At any rate, it seems to be burning oil (judging by the sooty back hatch, above the tailpipe). Back to New Guy: He only had one load of boxes. He then parked his car in the parking garage on ####, Which is still within view, he must not suspect I was watching. I turned off the lights in my apartment and "made my bed". I sat on the floor in the kitchen for about 3 hours and sure enough, he came to window and looked out. He is a tall man, probably in his 40's. He wears glasses. When the opportunity came, I moved to the bathroom. I will sleep here tonight.
05/24/97
Bright morning, loud in the streets. Monday. The New Guy gets an early start to his day. He left around 5:30AM. I am making plans to "one-up" him when he returns. First, I have to go shopping. Stockpile enough to last me 1 month. I will set up for surveillance on the roof. 6:36PM. Procured enough sustenance to last 3 weeks. New Guy arrived at about (exactly) 4:50PM. spent most of his time in the living area, he didn't draw back the curtains like he did last night. He left at 6:21PM. I continued to watch, in case he was trying to fake me out. Hopefully the next few days will establish a pattern that I may work around.
05/25/97
New Guy left his "home" at the same time today. Not surprised. I have made a cache of provisions and weapons, as well as a safe place to store my documents. I have an uneasy feeling about this New Guy. He seems so unconcerned.
05/26/97
If I must move again, I will leave everything here and start over completely. I will have to move further this time. I will disclose the new location as per enemy evasion protocol...
05/26/97
3120177 170111 017 1 111177 01774 12350120 1774 1773556935 117 969312 5003. 46113 12365017 70 83713113 1774 7617 111177 1776153 6 1770113 50017.
052797
57641179 0117 03 51947. 5617 51112111113 3012 680117 9 0645 1111740117 736111179 570537.
053097
51711671017 465 83501773 0359312673. 111177 76153 173553556124 177365111235 70 9123113177 569711123. 012117151179 7075 03 3711105 117 91239612671017.
060197
680117 70 56111 033 1774 7337 46170. 111177 74317 50175111773 46170 111174 *12310*
060397
5191713156177 7055 03 87000. 573391179
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)