Gender

[[because I'm not a chemist, biologist, or doctor, I'm simplifying things for this sake of macro-observation.]]

I can't recall where I heard this, probably in my intro to ethical genetic bio-technology course, which I was convinced neither of the two professors understood what they were talking about. Paraphrasing, "We don't yet know what triggers specific gender related sequences of DNA code to activate or not activate." --That's a lie. We know that hormones trigger your gender. We also know that stress factors into whether a child will turn into a girl or boy.
Your body transforms from your experiences in the womb to your experiences at 13 to when they start to stabilize at 17-23 and then until you reach old age, your hormones are what continue the process and what shape you into a male or female, up until you reach menopause and beyond, or whatever it's called when old men increase their fat stores and finally our bodies start breaking down. All that transformation happens because of chemicals that your body creates that trigger the morphing

At the end of your life, your body is the product of countless years of female or male hormones. You look very much like a man when you are an old man, or very much like a woman when you are an old woman. When egg and sperm are united, it is as if you start at 0 and suddenly you start progressing towards negative(-) infinity or positive(+) infinity.

When someone wants to get a sex change, they first start taking the opposite hormone pills. Slowly the overbalance of the opposite chemical starts to change the direction of their change. Men grow breasts; but you have to remember two things: first, a woman his age has progressed in that direction for many more years, and in order for him to look comparable to women  his age, he has to morph at a much faster (and likely unstable) rate. Second, he also still has his testicles, which are working in the opposite direction as his new pills.

It takes an operation to get rid of them, and once they're gone, they're gone. If he puts a uterus in its place, it doesn't aid him in his change, because it isn't built into the body properly and doesn't send out compatible hormones. Women, too, who get sex changes and put a penis in place, lack the necessary producers of hormones.

The point I'm getting at is that, you can take pills and "fake" the growth effect of the opposite sex, but you can never really become the opposite sex. Men who become women can't grow babies in "their womb", and women can't fertilize eggs. It's impossible.

While you are in the womb, your brain and your reproductive organs fuse together and constitute who you are. To do that reasonably, you need to build a framework for a larger system of parts, your body. Your hands, legs, stomach, it all goes towards protecting and providing for your brain and your reproductive organs. --to survive is nothing, anyone can survive if they have a simple system that converts food into energy, but to create is spectacular.
It requires one of two things to create something: a brain capable of creating (one that can express its "non-matter" thoughts in complex "matter" symbols), or creation can occur using sexual organs--but not independently.
Life is more than mere survival. To me, it seems, that we have two possible paths in life: sexual reproduction, or mental reproduction, which I would equate to fueling the torch, or passing the torch. If you can't help progress human thought, then you can have children who might progress it or else pass the torch on themselves. Or put a little more correctly: You can help mankind by broadening and deepening our understanding, either improving life quantifiably (improving the convenience of life) or qualitatively (improving the quality of experience in life). I am speaking of deeper qualitative improvements--doing things no one has done, experimenting and inventing methods to improve human quality (such as when the film media[quantitative] was invented and allowed artists to improve the [quality] of life by teaching the world how to really feel through film)

So fitting all of this into gender:

People need to take advantage of their gender, not run from it. You're just wasting your life if you try to play the opposite part. You don't really improve anyone's quality of life by changing your gender from your sex (gender is choice, sex is birth). It's a selfish tactic, and I've tried to argue before that humans aren't meant to be selfish; we're meant to work together and overcome selfishness and create greatness.


[[EDIT: Be sure to read my follow up to this article!]

Advertisements

Everything you need to know about the way humans work you can learn from advertisements. They are a short, 30secs packed with hundreds of hours of effort, study, knowledge, and observation. If you were to only analyze advertisments and how, why, when, they work, you'll learn more quickly than if you study books on the subject or go to college.

Depending on the audience, different ads pop up. I walked in on ESPN the other day, they advertised beer and tums. Then I walked in on some new MMA show on another channel, probably MTV, where these redneck kids in Louisiana duke it out on friday nights in a cage. The show focused mostly on the lives of these high school/post-high aged MMA fighters and how dramatic and stressful their lives are. One kid was married and had a baby but then they divorced. She went to nursing school while working as a CNA; he went to training and...it didn't get into if he had any other job. I turned to my companions watching the show and said, "this feels a bit over-dramatic and girly." No sooner had I said than the commercials popped on: tampons, pro-active, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trailers...

It's interesting that GWDT trailers would pop up.--I haven't seen the show, but from what everyone describes to me the thought just keeps coming to my head that it is more of a girl's movie than a mans. Sure, there are brief aspects of it that are solely for men, but it's about a girl who was severely messed up due to sexual trauma. Men are typically repulsed from that kind of stuff. Most men want to avoid thinking that women suffer from things like that--Not because men are evil and abusive, but because by nature, men like to think life is structured and orderly and that women who appear strong on the surface are strong inside too. It messes with the male mind to discover when women have major issues and is almost a traumatic experience for men just making the discovery. It's a different experience from hearing that a male companion of theirs was molested when he was little... it's just...weird. In this example, advertisements can prompt understanding of human interrelations.

Not only do ads reveal things about the audience of the tv programming, they also reveal things about the audience the ad is targeting. For instance, look at the color paterns in womens' product ads. Shampoos, tampons, beauty products, they like to incorporate white, whereas Male soap, condoms, and shaving gear use darker colors like deep blue or green. Why? I am not sure, but I assume it relates to the emotions those colors conjure, like deep colors are more manly and white and hot pink or orange or bright blue are more pure or "spunky" and fun.

Yogurt ads are clutch too...how many men do you see in yogurt adds? Their colors, even the transitions they use seem to be targeted more for men than women. It's odd really...I enjoy yogurt. It's part of my Swedish blood I suppose, and Yoplait Strawberry Cheesecake is the best ever. My stomach hungers for it just thinking about it. The most dominant Yoplait ads that stick in my memory are the angel women eating up in heaven. --The ads don't attract me to the product, but I find it interesting.

After making my comment about the MMA show, one of the girls in the room (I know!...the guys weren't enjoy it, but the girls were, kinda proves a point, doesn't it?) countered by saying, "I don't get it, earlier you said you wanted to see GWDT, now you're saying it's a girl show."

I didn't get the chance to explain to her that as a student of life, rhetoric, and culture, I on occasion watch, read, and study things that aren't necessarily geared for me, nor will I agree with them. It's the same reason why I occasionally listen to a country song. Watching and experiencing these things helps me to understand other people better. I may not enjoy it, but if I'm careful, I can spot why the other side appreciates it. After all, women's ads aren't all written by women, they're written by men too, (and I'd beg to argue that you're sexist for thinking otherwise!)

Ads are unique because they aren't secret about what they're doing. You know entirely what their argument is up front, and it's easy to pick apart what words they use to argue it. The pictures might be a little more difficult, but it's all common sense stuff; and from that common sense you can infer other "common sense" knowledge that is very practical--like not to watch or comment about that MMA show to "The fellas" because they'd think you were gay. :-/

Offence

People get offended way too often. I know that my views about offence are probably only accepted by 1% of society, even though when I explain them to you now 99% of people will agree with what I say.
However, there is a disconnection between what people think they do, and what they actually do.

Specifically, people get upset more over written communication than they do verbal communication. I honestly don't know why that is because it doesn't make sense to me. They get offended over failure to communicate in a faulty medium--written words are much more ambiguous and indirect than verbal communication, such as on a telephone or in-person. --I'm being facetious. When we communicate in-person, there are actually several communication channels open: there's audio, body language, and even some sort of metaphysical or magnetic field type channel when we talk in-person. With as many channels as are open, it makes the message more direct. Over the phone there are less; in a letter, even still less; in an email, where handwriting is limited, even less; on twitter and facebook, less, because there are less characters; through a text message, even still less.
Each of these mediums have practical benefits of course: when people don't see your body language it's easier to hide useless information or static information that is caused by failure to portray the proper emotions. Slowing down time to have a conversation through texting or facebook gives each side extra thought processing time and allows them to formulate answers more concisely. But some of the time that isn't a good thing: more time to analyze what is written, more time to criticize and evaluate, more time to get carried away and to let tempers flare and to insert things between lines. Without those few extra channels that are provided by in-person conversation, it means we have more room for conflict if it should arise. This, at its core, is why they say writing is more ambiguous than verbal--don't get me started on when in-person conversations are taken over by a 3rd party, who in turn, is able to approach them with the same level of criticism and analysis as if it were on facebook or twitter. --If you were wondering, this is how gossip happens!

In any case, people get offended WAY too easily. The above preface to this remark helps me make the case that, if there is anywhere that someone should let ambiguity overwhelm them, it should be over in-person conversations and not texts, emails, twitter, facebook, or even hand written letters. If they wouldn't take the same conversation that was said in a letter and get offended by it if the person were in-person, then there is no reason why they should be offended at all. Words are words...symbols of communication--they aren't the actual communication themselves. A lot of the intended meanings of things are lost in translation from the writing medium to the medium that thoughts are written in.

Regardless, people always find a way to get offended. They get offended when someone intends to do something but doesn't. They get offended when someone intends to do something that the other person wouldn't like. They even get offended when someone intends to do something malicious to someone else, but then doesn't follow through with it--as if they are just egging them on to start fighting because somehow they will benefit from the fighting. They get offended when people purposefully do harmful things to them. They get offended when people accidentally do harmful things to them. They get offended when people do things to them and then don't apologize for those things as if they were 'going' to forgive them, but because they didn't ask for that forgiveness they have all the more reason to be offended by them --please, give it up, we all know you were never REALLY going to forgive them, what you're doing is called justifying.
People like to get offended when others break their promises. They get offended when they don't ever make any promises. They get offended when they are given a vow to make it up to them for having to break a promise--as if to say they were offended for being offered recompense! People like to get offended when there is no money for them and when there is money for them but they don't get to use it in the way that they want. They get offended when other people get money and they don't. They get offended when people ask them questions. They get offended that no one asks them questions. They get offended that someone asks them a question and then forgets the answer and asks again. They get offended when they ask a question and they don't get an answer. They get offended when they ask a question, get an answer, but don't like the answer to that question.
Had enough?

People can basically get offended for anything that they choose to be offended by; and what's worse is that they get offended by miscommunication, especially miscommunication caused by faulty mediums.

Gee, it would really be nice if we all had telepathy and could just convey our thoughts right over to people and then the offences would be limited to: "I'm offended that you would even think that!"

My take on offense is simple: I don't get offended until three solid strikes and I forgive and forget about it 24 hrs later. When my head hits the pillow I've forgotten about everyone that bothered me that day. It's quite stress free, and I don't care if people think I'm crazy, or bold for coming up to my so-called enemies and acting as though everything is fine.

The thing is, I have found that people will react to you the way that you react to them. If I were to get offended every time someone offended me, it would only make things worse. They would be further offended that I was offended by them, then it would be my turn, and I would get offended that they got futher-offended that I got offended...you can see where this is headed. That's why nukes were put in lock-down and sanctions in place a long time ago...because with the right two people, offence can lead to offence can lead to offence can lead to nuclear war.

The message is simple: You get offended by whatever you choose to be offended by. If you choose not to be offended by things, then nothing's going to offend you. Trust me it's easy to do: if crazy people can accidentally not be offended by things, then you too, who are sane, can purposely not be offended by things.


[[And as a side note, (I can't resist sharing this) my favorite reason for people being offended is when they get offended because they know something that other people don't, or they're talented at something that others are not, and they get offended that someone would ask them if they would volunteer their talents or knowledge ("What's she think I am, her slave!?"). I'm not sure the correct term for that: Is it a form of arrogancy and control, as in, "I don't want you to know this gem because it will make you a more powerful person and I don't want anyone to be more powerful than I am," or is it that they are offended that they aren't normal because normal people aren't as talented or intelligent as they are?--people do, in fact, desire to be a part of the majority, and our definition of sanity is based on how we relate to the majority of society.]]


I opened this article with: 99% of you will agree with this even though only 1% of you really believe this. I suppose what I meant was that only 1% of society practices what they believe about offence. It's easy to be offended, sure. We all get offended, sure. It's easy to justify our behavior and reason for being offended. Sure. But it takes a real man or real woman to choose to NOT be offended and to carry on with life. And I'm going to be really offended if after reading this article you are still part of the 99!

[[Answers: "What's she think I am, her slave!?" "No, but, ya know, you could just politely tell her no and be flattered that she came to you knowing that you know how to do what she can't."]] 

Shades of Grey

Sorry to make this suddenly less professional. I've tried to keep my personal life out of it as much as possible and focus on the philosophy, rhetoric, proof and truth; but I need to share this observation.

I am part of 1/5 faction of my society. There are fairly distinct divisions in the world around me between people, and it disturbs me. Where is the unity of mankind? We are not unified; we do not have one heart and mind. We aren't all working towards the same things even though a couple of the factions may claim so and call it by a different name that has the appearance of being the same thing.--it isn't.

I am referring only to my age group and location. I've tried to be tolerant so that I could see each viewpoint and yet, even I am very intolerant.

The five factions I speak of are these:

1. Extremist Mormons
2. Doubting Mormons
3. Moderates
4. Other Religious
5. Anti-Mormons

I fall into the third category. There was a time when I left that category to become a part of the first category, and life cracked down on me and I became the second category and it was a scary time for me. My recovery was an acceptance process in which I learned to accept things the way they are and I now try to find a balance between everything.
I've always had friends in the fourth category, and even a couple in the fifth category, but I try to stay away from them as much as possible.

If you were to chart these factions into a pie chart, it would look much like a peace sign. The lines between the fourth and fifth factions often blend and become the non-mormons, and the lines between the first and second blend as well and become the mormons. What you are left with is the third category. Mormons assume they aren't mormon; Non-mormons assume that they are. I don't know how many of us there are, but I suspect not that many.

I haven't quite placed my finger on the cause of these three factions--particularly, I don't understand how there are so many extreme mormons and so many doubting mormons and not many moderates. I can understand why there are other religious views, and I think I can wrap my head around the cause of the fifth category.

A lot of people in my age group are judgmental, they make assumptions before finding evidence, such as when they refuse to date anyone who hasn't been on a mission, or doesn't attend church. They are prone to avoid talking to people either due to previous bad experiences, or they live in fear that they are going to be converted to the dark side. Those that do branch out to talk to people from other factions, it seems, only do so because they want to convert them to their faction. I suppose it's probably really lonely over there, and it's also a badge of honor to convert someone. For all I know they could be judgmental and push for change merely because they feel hurt and trapped and they want to make others miserable as well, even when their misery is only caused by their extreme nature.
The problem with all extremist groups however, is that they are easy to manipulate and control. Mankind has seen what Christian and Islam extremists can do as they wage crusades and jihads. We have seen what pagan extremists can do as Hitler conquered and killed thousands. Being an extremist doesn't help society, it doesn't help mankind, and it doesn't help you personally.

The other half of church-going Mormons are doubtful. They don't know how to make sense of life, they see the extremists and they feel pressure from them and they assume that they aren't good enough. They question everything. They assume that because they don't know the answers it is because they aren't meant to know them right now and that with enough time the answers will be revealed to them. There are a lot of good people trapped in this faction, and I am cautious in using that word. They are trapped because they are using their religion as a crutch. Instead of finding answers to obvious questions about life, they turn to religion because they have been told that church has all the answers. --There are times when the church doesn't have answers though. God may have the answers, but as part of your learning process he is going to force you to branch out and learn for yourself.
The doubting mormons tend to band together with extremist mormons, trying to fit in. They don't want to be extreme, but they don't want to be excluded. They don't possess the same hatred or disgust or that extremists might, but at the same time, they aren't independent. They live in doubt because they don't "know" anything and merely trust faith, yet eventually you have to "know" things--you have to resolve in yourself that things are true, because really, nothing we "know" can be 100% proven and we are always acting on faith. Lack of confidence puts you in this category.

Other religions approach mormons in Utah with mixed emotions. They know that there are good mormons and that there is no reason to judge all mormons the same. But they also know there are extremist mormons who are equivalent to mormon terrorists. They see the pain that some doubting mormons go through and they assume that mormonism makes a person unhappy. They want to reach out and help those people and they try to lure them away from their religion, but only with the best intentions.
Because they are from other religions, they engage in behavior that mormons do not. This puts them at odds with the extremists. There is the occasional tension between the extremists and the other religions, but it doesn't lead to conflict. They also tend to be a little more happy than mormons because they aren't as constrained by their religious views, they aren't criticized as much, and they don't have as much pressure and stress related to religion. While the doubtful might feel stress and pressure for not knowing about life, and assume that religion is designed to give the answers, but because of their behavior they don't feel they deserve to know about life; the other religions maintain the belief that occasionally church cannot provide answers and solutions, even when they ought to. Other religions are a little more at peace with life and more accepting of the unknown.

Anti-mormons are the extremists opposing the mormon half. They don't want anything to do with mormons. They outright oppose mormons agendas, even when those agendas might help them as well. They are distrustful. They are full of hatred and bias. They make plenty of assumptions about ALL mormons and pin as many of their problems on mormons as possible. They don't realize that most of their problems are their own problems. Many, possibly even most of them, are ex-mormons who at some point got fed up with the extremist behavior. The rest of them come from other religions that are fed up with mormon dominance in Utah and extremist tension. There are real conflicts between these extremists and the extreme mormons.


Then there's me and other moderates. Extreme Mormons assume we're non-mormons because we have non-mormon friends or doubting friends who still believe but have their own faults that prevent them from fully knowing. We don't really fit the cookie-cutter shape that mormons want us to. We don't do things merely because it is what our religion tells us to do. We don't do things merely because people pressure us to do them and want us to do them. We do things because we want to do them. Extremists don't really want us around unless we're going to fully convert and become just exactly like they are.
When Anti-mormons see us, they assume we're those "evil mormons" who cause them so much trouble. They don't want us around either because of our faith. When they don't catch on that we are part of that mormon group, they want us to join in with them in bashing mormons. They're not much different from extreme mormons except they're the inverse. Both extremists and anti's want us to be miserable just like they are. Neither of them really 'know' anything, they act on their own personal faith, either pro-mormon faith, or anti-mormon faith and they're adamant and over-confident that they are correct. So confident that they breeze over a lot of facts that indicate they need to tone it down a little. Their emotions lead them more than their logic, and as rhetoric teaches, if you want to learn the truth you've got to be persuaded by both equally and not one over the other.

The relation between doubting mormons and moderates, and other religions and moderates is very complex. Some approach us as an opportunity to join in with the extremists of either end by pinning fault on us and strengthening their own beliefs to where they can join either faction. Being a moderate I have to constantly resolve concerns of either side, either by either being tolerant of their views or showing that I put my stock in my faith and that I'm not an extremist on either end. The truth is, I try to be as true to myself as possible, and somehow people must recognize that I'm moderate.


Being this way, I don't know how to proceed. The majority of people live on either polar end. Rhetoric is only useful on the doubting mormons, other moderates, and other religions. My other blog wasn't successful enough because I was gearing it to a moderate audience and because I didn't want to gear to an extreme audience. Making friends can be difficult and political because I really don't like hanging around either of the extreme ends, and they don't like me hanging around them either. Not knowing whether this will continue all of my life  isn't a good feeling though I suspect it will. Life is just mysterious and interacting with people isn't always fun either....

Women in Costumes

I like girls who dress up in costumes, but then again ALL real Men do!

Hear me out!

Initially, when two people are attracted to one another, it is because of physical looks. Unless two people meet for the first time never having seen each other before, which is improbable because of the internet, they will first size up the other person using their eyes. Our most dominant sense is our vision, and we typically size up the opposite sex with our eyes first. This makes first visual impressions very important.

So why costumes? What do I mean by costumes?

Part of our human condition  is to seek purpose and make meaning in our lives; we seek closure in everything. Closure is what happens when our subconscious "completes the picture." When we can't see under the table, we assume that person sitting across from us has legs and can stand up. When we look at a Rorschach test, we  make up meaning out of the inkblots, even though they were created randomly, and we only do this by using our ability to establish closure. Closure is essential for us to be happy with the things that wouldn't otherwise make sense in our lives.

All humans are arrogant and have deep egos. Because of the human condition, we take closure a little too far: it causes us to believe we know everything when we discover something that seems to make sense--imagine seeing a pair of cowboy boots sticking under the table, it strengthens your assumptions that you understand things, even though it doesn't prove anything. The person on the other side of the table may as easily be paralyzed from the waist down and simply like to wear cowboy boots. Or they might not even be wearing the boots, they could just be sitting on the floor!

Not only does closure make us arrogant, it also leads us to desire things that aren't real. Because we have the ability to use our imagination and dream up anything we want, with a little help, we can make it believable enough that to us it is real and we're experiencing something real in our minds. That is why, when we read a book, watch a movie, or listen to a song, we can get an emotional experience from it. It can literally suck us into another etherverse and we suddenly feel as if it were real, so our emotional reactions are also real. Closure causes us to do this. What little information we receive is just enough information to cause our imaginations to fill in the rest and make it real. It's Magic! Pure Magic!

Closure happens in everything, but it is most powerful in visual form, so when we see someone in costume, we equate that with reality. We believe what we see, more than what we smell, hear, taste, or touch. We assume that a woman wearing a business suit is going to behave professionally, a woman wearing a provocative red dress is going to be seductive, and a woman in blond and pig-tails is going to be completely naive and ditsy. Closure does this. We complete the "full picture" in our heads and make assumptions based on that closure effect.
I'm going to postpone writing an article on the ethics of this, because personally I think it's very complex (to lay the ethics of wearing "costumes" is to determine whether it is correct to wear costumes, whether it is correct to make assumptions, whether it is correct to act on those assumptions, and whose fault is it? the costumer or the viewer?)

In movies, classy ones, not the smut that inexperienced filmmakers make, closure is used to enhance particularly emotional scenes. Instead of watching a full sex scene, professionals will show as minimal as possible, the lifting of a skirt in a dark room, a pair of kissing heads pushing off camera, &c. To further the effect, they typically describe one specific aspect of the scene, about like adding one adjective to a word: Brief glimpses of beast-like behavior manifested when she bears her fangs (beast-like, paralyzed?), a diversity of human sounds (...), extreme close-ups of indistinguishable skin bumps(cold, nervous?) &c. PG-13 movies tend to be more saucy than R-rated movies, and they achieve higher success (financially) because of it.

With the power of closure, less is more.


When I say costumes, I really mean clothing and attire. But not necessarily WHAT is being worn, but HOW it is being worn and what ISN'T being worn and should be in order to complete the costume.

Costumes are historical. The Egyptians figured out the significance of make-up and jewelry in developing a "costume" long ago, Persians devised body-paint, and it's anybody's guess of who came up with the first tattoo. Silk was very popular, historically, because it has the ability to blow in the wind and also how snug it could fit to the body. Specific aspects of the frame could be emphasized while everything else was loose and guessable. Whenever we are forced to use our imagination, we tend to make it better than it really is.
Makeup is especially intriguing. In it's most basic form, makeup changes the light around a person's body. Historically, and even today, the eyes have been considered the light of the body. When two people look directly into each others' eyes for extended periods of time, a strange phenomenon takes place in which thoughts can be conveyed and shared. This is very powerful and magical too, and because of it's power, eye-shadow is designed to direct all of the light reflecting off of a woman's face, into her eyes. When other people look at her, the composition of her face (enhanced by the makeup) focus attention on the iris.
In Asia, covering a woman's full face in make-up forced men to wonder what was underneath and it forced closure. The face is typically considered where a person's wisdom and personality are most manifest. The way a person smiles, or if they smile at all, is a good indicator of their general demeanor. People can have "shy" smiles, "cocky" smiles, disturbed smiles, and angry smiles. There is something in the way our faces warp and shape over time that is correlated to our personalities. Completely covering a woman's face in makeup leaves a lot of her personality up for interpretation and imagination.

What most men are really looking for isn't a reality--they want a guise. There are many "pretty" women who, when seen without makeup, might scare even the neighbor's cat. But for anyone who thinks they can sidestep the costumes, I suppose I have to be the messenger who tells you you're trapped in it: women who don't wear a "costume" are seen as boring, uninteresting, and 'plain.' When you reveal too much of your true self, men figure you out too quickly and lose interest equally as fast.

Don't fret though, when I initially started this article it was my objective to first convince you that you are wearing a costume--whether you like it or not! And second, to tell you what to do about it: wear a costume.
For whatever reason, when humans realize their inevitable isolation (because you have no control over this, you feel distanced from the world and it makes you upset), they want to complain and make demands. People push for social change when they notice little things like this, but they don't realize that these aren't weaknesses or disabilities, they're strengths!
Since you have no control over this whole "costume" thing, why not wear the most spectacular costume? Why not devise the perfect persona that will help you reach your long-term goals? Why not enjoy the fact that every day of your life you can use your imagination to establish closure in other people? Really, all you are doing, is helping others enjoy their lives and find purpose.
And, beautifully, costumes aren't limited to stereotypes. Costumes are hand-crafted and can fit any situation, any personality, and any person. The key to designing a costume is to locate your strengths and weaknesses and to emphasize your strengths and hide your weaknesses. Leave your weak points up to the imagination--they'll aggrandize it an your favor! Make your strengths stand out.

Thinking about it, these "costumes" should really be called "Personal Advertising", or "Personal Branding" because what you are really doing is advertising yourself. When people buy a product, they don't judge the product by the advertisements they see for it, they judge the product by the product. If they get lured in by the advertising, you will still need to maintain their illusions, or else be genuine. Interestingly, given enough time using a product, people develop a loyalty to that product or brand. Ford fans or Chevy fans, to this day, refuse to buy any other brand, even when the parts for these vehicles are manufactured practically the same. If you can maintain the illusion of your 'costume' long enough in front of people, it doesn't matter, people will develop a loyalty to who you are presenting, and it will be VERY difficult to sever that loyalty.

Enlightenment

Buddhists talk about enlightenment like it's some sort of secret that you can obtain after spending your whole life. They say it's peaceful, it's joyous, it's happiness, it's purity, it's wisdom. Christians talk about the rapture like it's peaceful, it's joyous, it's happiness, purity and wisdom.

Men react positively to being kicked while they're down, yelled at and spit upon whereas women react negatively to being kicked while they're down, yelled at and spit upon but react positively to venting and complaining. Men hate wining, bitching, and moaning.

Some might tell you that there is only one way to enlightenment. That there is one way to heaven. That there is only one way into paradise. That there is a formula for peace, that this world is solvable and that there is a solution to everything.

I feel I found enlightenment a long time ago and I'm finally willing to admit that I found it.

Let me argue that claim using numbered points, though, having been enlightened all I can say is that if this doesn't make sense and it makes you upset or damn unhappy, even upset...well, you don't understand it because you're not enlightened.

1. You CAN control everything in your life, and if you're enlightened enough you can even control other people. How? Through various tricks of the mind such as re-framing, forced positivity, &c.

2. Life's cyclical. If you want to be ultra happy, you have to be ultra sad. The most happiness you can experience in life is the climax point where you've finally overcome your lowest of lows. Why? Because our entire lives are all about experiences. We have ingrained DEEPLY inside of us the natural desire for the next best thing. If we clutch greatness in our hands we want more. It's greedy and the longer we go without it, the more we want it and the more upset it makes us that we can't have it.

3. EVERYONE is arrogant. No one exempt from the arrogancy bug. We all want to think that we know something--or, at least we WANT to think that we know things. This is because you can't truly "know" anything abstract and even many concrete 'facts'. The only knowledge we can really be sure of are the things we are touching, smelling, tasting, seeing--and only in that moment! At any moment we can lose those experiences--if you die, your senses (which constitute your experiences) will end. What you hold in your hands you will lose. What you smell, taste, see--all gone. But you find comfort in thinking you KNOW something and have made something concrete out of this life.

4. The only other thing you can experience in this life is your own thoughts and imaginations, and your imaginary world is JUST AS POWERFUL as your reality. What you perceive you are experiencing as reality is just as powerful, maybe even more powerful than the reality of things. This is why, when we get sucked into movies, our emotions take over and we find ourselves crying in our seats. This is why, when we think someone has betrayed you, you still feel things, even when you discover afterwards that it was only something you thought.

5. Whether your own relative truth is the same as the universal truth, it doesn't matter because what you experience is real. Whether what happens in soap operas is real, or even realistic, if it can create a response from you, then in that moment it is real, you made it real when you reacted. When it made you upset, it was as if that scene was real. Whether your reason for being unhappy right now is justified or not, you really are unhappy!

6.  The only way for you to improve your situation is to change something in your life. Nothing changes, for you, without changing them yourself. This may involve various tricks of the mind, such as re-framing, forced positivity, &c. or it might require physical change on your part, but nothing will change on its own.

7. Yet the world is always changing. This is partly because other people have realized they want to change their lives for the better, and partly because this world we live in, the universe controlled by natural laws or the world created by mankind controlled by civic laws, is constantly changing in order to still exist. You can't control the changes, but you can influence them, and with enough support from other people you can shape them.

8. You can however, control your emotions. You can control how you react and respond and because you can control how things make you feel, you can control your experiences. You can control how you experience things. You can control how things shape your character and you can even control whether your experiences really are shaping you or not.  If you want negative experiences to make you stronger, you can rise above them, but if you don't do anything, then your experiences will shape you negatively.

9. The key to getting what you want out of life is to start by figuring out what you want, because if you have no wants or desires, or you are unsure what they are, then you will revert to whatever present care you have, and your present cares are shaped by your present experiences, and if you don't control those experiences, they will be 9 times out of 10 be negative.

10. Occasionally, you get a lucky break. Lucky situations, where complex details works in your favor, are the product of preparation and hard work. The effort and energy that you put into your life will always pay off no matter what; but unless you are entirely skilled, that effort and energy will return to you in a form that you don't entirely realize and possibly not all at once. Hard work always brings immense benefits and easy work will always bring simple benefits.

11. Just because you become enlightened, just because you see how the universe works and you have come to terms with it and you have learned to control it, that doesn't mean that you won't have hard times. It is all a part of the cycles, remember that in order to feel joy you first have to feel pain and the more pain you feel the more good that will come from it.

12. Self inflicted pain is caused by using positive energy in a negative way. If you want to be happy, don't force yourself to the lowest depths, because it doesn't work that way, you are wasting the control over life that you do have.

13. You are a free agent; you are moving through this life on your own and the decisions you make are entirely yours. No one can make decisions for you, and as such, no one can change your life for you or experience the same things that you experience. This makes you entirely unique.

14. Although you are an isolated individual, it is when you fight against isolation that you will find your greatest strength. This is because there are experiences you can obtain only through your relationships with other people. The highest of highs you could ever experience can only be obtained by sharing those experiences with others. No one, living in isolation, can real their full potential.

15. You were incomplete and unfinished the moment you stepped into this life, and no matter how far you travel, how far you progress, there are certain aspects of yourself that you are not meant to complete on your own. Men and women, for example, are different from one another in many ways and no matter how much you develop, you will still be just a male or a female. Even through changing your sex using hormone therapy or surgery, you can never become a male or become a female. Because you can never become one or the other, on your own you can never have a child, and on your own you can never experience the bond/relationship of a father-to-child or mother-to-child. You cannot experience everything in this life.

16. Although you cannot experience everything in life, you still need to experience somethings, in fact, some experiences are necessary in this life such as birth and death, hunger, pain, happiness, sickness, health, &c.

17. To be enlightened is to learn how to feel at peace with the changes going on around you, and what processes you need to take in order to have an upward swing when you are falling downward. There is no "perfect" life, only the perception of it.

I want to end there because I think that returns to the beginning and you can start at #1 and read through these again.

I do however, want to touch on the importance and purpose of relationships one more time before I sign off and go to bed:

#14, #15. You can choose to live a life without experiencing relationships. You can reframe your life and your experiences so that you do not feel anything negative from not building any kind of bond with anyone. You can hide behind other pleasures, some of which may include limited forms of relationships, but recognize this simple truth: you have already experienced birth. The next best thing in life is to experience giving birth. You too may become enlightened and may feel peace in this life, but this experience will always come back to you. Your conscious does not remember it because, as you age, your childhood, when you had limited abilities to experience, is forgotten. Your subconscious however, does remember this experience.  And although you think you have full control over things, your subconscious has a way of controlling you by planting little desires in you that you aren't aware their source. You will reach a point where this surfaces and you desire to experience this, and you may mask it and reframe it, but it is really there both concretely and abstractly.

My suggestion is that everyone should at least have one child before they die and I can argue that later.

Life is... suppressed

Life is shifting every day. People change around you, circumstances change around you, and what you know or think you know changes so fast that you honestly can't say that life is constant.

I have a love-hate relationship with online friends. I like having friends who I only know online--it makes me feel like I have friends when I have nowhere to go in the real world. I love that when I'm finally finished working on homework or any kind of work over my computer screen, I'm just a click away from my online friends. In fact, that is one of the original great appeals I had with myspace and facebook: I could meet new online friends. 

BUT, I absolutely hate online friends. I hate people that I've never met in person. I hate meeting people online because the friends you meet online are empty. Probably, somewhere, on the other side of the internet there is a person just like me who only makes friends online because he wants to feel like he has friends when he has nowhere to go in the real world. Well, when he has a place to go in the real world you never hear from him again. Dumb sucker.
That's why I hate online friends. And as you can see, I'm guilty of it as well.

Making friends online is like making friends on a train ride. When the train stops, everyone goes their own way. Some go to the market, some to the bar, some to the chapel, and others just go home. The worst part about it is that people online find it taboo to meet up in the real world. The only ones you'll meet in the real world are the ones that are as desperate as you are to have friends.

Sadly, I've met practically all of my friends online. 

And yes, you guessed it, we met up offline as well.

And yes, you guessed it again, they all went their own ways.

Awww, what am I saying, all of my friends have gone their own way and the metaphor needs changing: making friends in real life is like going on a train ride. When the train stops, everyone goes their own way. Some go to the market, some to the bar, some to the chapel, and others just...

I think what I'm explaining is more of a modern occurrence. Before socializing on the internet was big, meeting people required meeting them in person. This new generation though, all they know is a world in which the online is a major part of their life.

The only problem that I can see with the online world is that it has different rules than the real world. People are concerned for their safety and "privacy". I honestly don't think there are THAT many pedophiles, creeps, identity thieves, and otherwise on the internet. I also don't think there is much that such a person could do without perfect circumstances.
My phone number has leaked to the real world from the online world and it really hasn't effected me, nor have I done anything to clean it up. I've "suffered" from ID theft in which many people have my phone number, even though I don't know who they are. Someone out there is using a craigslist account with my phone number and craigslist won't reset it, causing only an annoyance because I can't use my cellphone on craigslist and have to resort to the home phone. Lately I've been getting "prank" calls from dog pounds asking if I want fix my dog, I've had Avon asking if I want to get a "drag package" for guys who want to be girls, I even just barely got a call from a trucking company asking if I wanted them to pick up my package. . . Sure, it's annoying, but if I met this person in the real world I'd probably be annoyed by them in a similar way.
I'm not afraid of people online, true, being a guy is different from being a "vulnerable" young woman, but women aren't any more vulnerable than men are. I saw a story last night of a young Oklahoma single mother. Her husband passed away from cancer a week ago and 2 men stalked her and tried to break into her home with a 12" hunting knife--you know their intentions. Someone could as easy lure me into the real world to mug me and steal my money. Some "girl" could play like she's interested in meeting me offline for a date and a guy could come out with a gun and take my car from me, change the paint color and the licence and fake a VIN number and sell it--or even sell it to someone without a background check AND keep the money in my wallet. I don't see any less threat being a man than being a woman would, it's just in a different way. The news just likes to play with peoples' misconceptions about life (that women are more vulnerable than men for instance).

In real life, people care more about passing time than having relationships. They would rather pass time on the internet with people they don't know and may never meet in real life than go to some sort of social gathering and meet people there with real people.
This article is about how life is suppressed however, so you know I'm not just railing on online friendships. In fact, if you follow my style, you might realize that I'm going to convince you that online relationships are better than real-world ones...

In real life, you can't just "approach" people anymore. It's taboo. "Sociology Experts" (sorry for being vague--I can't recall who has said this, but MANY people have said this) claim that the rising generation X, since the generation has been accustomed to instant gratification and online socializing and cell phones and other modern technology, is less adept at face-to-face communication. Talking OVER a cell-phone is more difficult for people than texting or emailing someone, because culture hasn't emphasized it. Instead of calling customer service, this generation, and likely any future generations, would rather look at an FAQ online or use a chat service. Because modern marketing seeks out customers rather than seeking to lure in customers, people (or "gen x and future generations") expect others to come to them when they have specific needs, then, just as if those people were an advertisement, the individual has to choose to accept or reject them.
But BECAUSE advertising is so pesky, "marketing experts" claim that people are getting smarter and more savvy. "Marketing Experts" claim that people are so smart that it is "easy" for them to spot advertisements. --I wish I knew who said that, because meanwhile, "psychology experts" are claiming that people are becoming so swamped with information that they don't know how to make sense of anything and it is easier for them to be duped because they've given up on trying to sort it out. [I ought to write an in-depth article about this, because really it's rhetoric: when people are confused by too much logic, make an appeal to ethos or make an appeal to pathos...make them so frustrated by their competitors that they choose you for being the only non-pesky one...even when you're the MOST pesky one]
I went to a party on New Years. Many people my age went to that party and I wrote an article on it. During this party I got sick of standing around people I didn't know and couldn't hear and I lost them in the crowd when I went to grab a drink. I decided to sit down on a chair rather than seek them out--I was bored anyway. The only place I felt comfortable sitting (people were spaced intermittently along the wall and there were not "empty" seats) was next to an attractive girl sitting all by herself. She looked a little grumpy actually,  I could tell she wasn't the same religion as everyone at the party and she had that look on her face like: Mormons are weird and rude and no one will give me attention. So I asked her if I could sit in the empty chair next to her.
Again, that was the ONLY chair I felt comfortable sitting at. I didn't want to sit by old people who were there to monitor the party. I didn't want to sit by 5 or 6 guys and girls who looked absorbed in their conversations. People had jackets and bags on chairs that I didn't want to move. So I sat by the grumpy girl, probably with the intent to cheer her up, make a friend, for a relationship with her and then possibly get her number so that I can say I made a new friend and didn't waste the night.
When I sat down though, I suddenly felt VERY uncomfortable. At that moment I became the creeper kid who comes up to pretty girls just to get their number, baptize them, and then marry them. I was a little too invested in the seat to just leave, and I didn't want to do anything rude, more importantly, I didn't want to be that "Creeper kid". I laugh now that I think about it, because "I'm a rebel like that": I occasionally like to do things that are taboo, and play the part of the cocky jerk or the timid nerd just because I can. (You might say I'm a freak like that, but for some reason playing like I'm cocky or timid lets people know I'm really not timid and I'm really not cocky, I'm pretty moderate)
My discomfort, as I think about it now, was caused by social norms that have been established in this generation which I was trying to break: ~You can't just talk to strangers!~. People have built up their lives so that they don't WANT people to just approach them. I've heard from a friend, and thought it was VERY foolish at the time, that some people think they want to get to know you online before they meet you in person. He was right though: some people do not want to talk in person because they don't know how to communicate verbally. They don't want to talk in person because they don't have anything to hide behind; if the person they're talking about turns into a creep, a jerk, a pessimist, annoying, or some sort of thief, they have no where to run. They don't want to talk in person because they'd rather pass time, get old, and die; than build relationships.
[[What are we if we aren't social animals?Are we predators? Are we insects? Are we more like moles?]]

In the English language there isn't an antonym for communicating back and forth. There isn't just one word to explain when people don't talk to each other. I chose the word "suppressed," in the title, to describe what I'm referring to, but suppressed implies that it was intentional, such as when you give someone the cold shoulder. I could have chosen "disconnected," but that implies that they are trying to communicate but they are speaking about different things, like when two people argue, one is arguing over the definition and the other is arguing over the outcome. In some ways people are intentionally not communicating with each other. In other ways people are speaking about different things and having conflicts from it.

Take your pick of antonyms: bottle up, conceal, cover, keep, keep quiet, suppress, withhold, hide, keep secret, repress. --None of them work for describing this: our modern society is unintentionally withholding information and failing to communicate.
It isn't that they don't WANT to communicate. No one really wants to not have friends. No one WANTS to be alone and I don't think our bodies are designed to be alone: we have a NEED for social interaction; especially if we've already had it before in the past. No one, having all the friends in the world, could withstand the psychological agony of losing all their friends, that is why movies like Castaway and Gladiator are so relatable. The main characters of these stories are pitiable BECAUSE of their psychological trauma.

The failure to communicate comes from lack of communication skills, the fear of breaking newly established social norms, and society's the failure to recognize this problem. The problem came about when internet culture evolved into mainstream culture. In order to fix this problem, we need to instill in society a culture of new social norms that aren't counter-intuitive to building relationships and we need to teach people how to have stronger communication skills to counter for the bad habits developed through online communication. Before we can fix this problem though, we need to recognize that it is a problem that our society is less personable and needs correcting.

Kings and Rulers

--
EDIT (1/5/2012): I've changed the title...originally I wanted this to be a part of my "Life is..." series, but I don't think it fits in line with that series. The information is good and informative (it does what good information should) but it isn't organized and I don't think the theme necessarily fits what my other "life is..." articles do.
--



What are we if not social animals? Where would we be if we didn't have dreams?
Our dreams are our desires before they happen and often the biggest dreamers are the most successful people. In order to be successful, we as humans have to start with having a 2)dream or a 1)desire. Our desires have to formulate into 3)plans, and our plans have to come to 4)fruition. Nothing that has transpired in the history of mankind has escaped this process.

I have been studying the macro-level of the rise of great nations lately; Japan, Rome, England, and the American Civil War specifically. In each nation, there were distinct factions, which I will call components, which needed to be united before they could become what greatness we today see them as. The leader of these respective nations followed a specific process in order to unite the country.

Shortly before 1200 AD, Japan suffered from many household rifts. Japan was populated by a handful of distinct and powerful elite families who ruled over several thousands of people and yet there was no distinct ruler over all Japan. Using political savvy and warring might, a Shogun was eventually crowed ruler over all Japan, and his family lasted for a couple hundred years before civil war broke out. The civil war ended in yet another shogun taking over all Japan. The interesting aspect of this human history is when looking at the fine details of the shoguns' rise. It was a very complex process and did not happen over night. Nor did it happen with mere physical force. At some point, the people needed to be persuaded not to serve their old masters.
Some, maybe even most, of the persuasion came in the form of brute force: punishing opposition, imprisoning rebels, bullying and intimidating, killing rivals. But there were other forms of persuasion that took place, specifically, there were established customs and rituals that united the Japanese people behind their new leaders.

Rome was not built in a day, yet in practically one day Julius Caesar became emperor of it (I am exaggerating). Prior to that fateful day, the roman kingdom was ruled by three elite rulers who, through their political ties in the senate and military might throughout the world, gave them dominion over all Roman affairs. The political climate reached a point where the people (especially the upper-tier of society) practically wanted a single emperor and were backing their respective member of the triumvarate (Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus). Tensions rose until Caesar marched on towards Rome and captured the capital. Upon ceasing the capital, however, Caesar wasn't instantly the Emperor of Rome. Life is more complex than that. He did, however, begin acting as though he were the supreme ruler of Rome, and he made MANY changes to the structure of the government and the social order.

England, after King Henry's death, was ruled by Queen Mary, who was catholic. Her sister, Elizabeth, was more of a Protestant worshiper. Mary became ill and died and Elizabeth was made Queen. But merely having the title did not make her the queen. She had many enemies in England and abroad. The political climate emphasized religion, and because she did not have a husband the religious leaders of the time put pressure on her to marry a catholic husband and to quell any protestant uprisings. (I apologize for the lack of research done here, but I believe she could not be respected in making any religious decisions on her own because she did not have a husband and according to religious views of the time the husband was the head of household and only one capable of making that decision for her--or her father, who was dead) --She was the queen of England and even she did not have full authority. She had to convince the religious leaders to sever their ties with the pope in order to allow English protestants to freely and legally worship, otherwise the pope could mandate that these protestants were heretics and enemies of the state and should be killed.

The American Civil war was sparked by a simple political problem: King cotton was too powerful. I'm sure an argument could be made comparing cotton to our modern oil industry. Cotton was just too powerful of an economy and it threatened many industries and the whole global political climate. The rest of the world put pressure on the U.S. to get rid of slavery. The North put pressure on the South to get rid of slavery because it gave southerners more political power in the senate than the North felt was fair (due to population issues and etc.). When Lincoln was elected president, and before he took office, Southerners feared the abolition of slavery and that it would ruin their entire economy and culture, and so they withdrew from the Union. It was their belief that their state was voluntarily associating with the other states and that they could withdraw that association at any time.
The North framed their secession as open rebellion, however, initially, president Lincoln played a game of rhetorical politics in which he claimed that the south "stole" Federal Union property when it brought U.S. forts along with it into the secession. The biggest initial burden on the U.S. when the south seceded was the issue of military: many generals left (which was the definition of desertion), forts and supplies were no longer on U.S. soil, and soldiers in U.S. uniforms were suddenly traded over. How should the president handle the situation? Honorably release them for abandoning country? Give the supplies to the south? He carried on as if nothing happened--not mentally, but in his actions: He resupplied forts and ignored any letters from the confederacy that they cease supplying them. When the war started, he made certain that the south fired the first shot.


If all social animals were submissive and fully willing to rationally compromise in their debates, none of these 'new' nations would have formed. I specifically put quote on the word "new" because they have since been framed to appear as though they have always existed. When Lincoln took office, his rule was radical--he freed the slaves and ensured that our country was a federal country, not a union of free agent nations. Japan truly was a new nation. Rome was no longer a republic but an empire/Monarchy, and Elizabeth ensured that the religious politics controlled by the pope didn't interfere in her country's politics and essentially did away with (in part) the divine right of kings.

Life is not historical. Although England is still England, America is still America, Japan is still Japan, and... well, Rome is dead, none of these are anywhere near the same as they were before their great civil wars. Rome, in fact now, is still around as far as I am concerned. It lives through it's religion, which has penetrated every continent and politically meddled with most nations. Roman thought and politics still exists in all countries. --Rome, though it's empire is dead, still lives just as much as Babylonian moral practices still exist everywhere.
You either have to accept that life is always changing and every political change, even small ones, are large shifts in the pond; or you have to assume that all of the structures in life, all of the conflicts, the politics, the rhetoric--none of that is new and our true roots as nations extend back to the time of the original superpowers: Egypt, Carthage, Phonecia, &c..

The Human Condition

Little did I know that if I wrote this blog long enough it would lead me to learn through studying.

Question for today:
What is the Human Condition?
A) Fear of Death
B) Inevitable Isolation
C) Desire for Purpose
D) Unquenchable Curiosity
E) All of the Above


...Obviously it's all of the above, and since I'm only human and I haven't even received my Bachelor's degree yet, nor do I think any of my professors flat out teach this philosophy (this makes me debate whether I picked the right institution! lol), I did not actually know what people meant when they said that. My professors would always make a casual remark about it without explaining what it is and assume that we all knew--I don't know anyone who knows what it officially is, and yet it is what the humanities study.

Since this blog is about truth, I want to summarize what I understand the human condition is. According to Plato, this is somewhat my duty, since I've left the cave and seen the real world.

A) Humans fear death. They go through the steps of denial and they simply DO NOT want things to come to an end. They have trouble coping with death because it means that there is nothing more. They fear that they will one day die and they don't know what awaits them in the afterlife, or if there even is an afterlife. They fear that others will die as well and they will cease to continue having a relationship with those people.
I don't talk much about death. I believe there is a God who will take me in once I die and that where he is is my natural home, where I am now is a proving grounds. If I had a glimpse of the afterlife I'm sure I wouldn't want to live here because there is so much better. I have however, spoken with MANY people who do not find comfort in death.
B) All humans will one day become isolated and alone. Everyone has experienced loneliness. No one likes to be isolated and separated. Many people will give up personal comforts in order to be part of the "in" crowd. People do silly things in order to have friends and relationships. Unfortunately, there is a universal constant that draws us away from people. We are ALWAYS being pulled away from people, so in order to have a relationship we have to CONSTANTLY pump energy and effort into staying together. That is the essence of the inevitable isolation: if we aren't growing closer to the people we love most, then we are growing apart and changing in our own ways.
I wrote my other blog, Dating Zion in order to explain some of these concepts in greater detail. It really concerns me how life is a catch-22: if I want to have friends, I have to spend time with them, meaning I have to spend less time with myself or other people. Having a good relationship with someone requires a lot of time and resources in order to combat that inevitable isolation. In my blog I talked about many other things that are in play related to this aspect of the human condition.
C) Humans don't want to aimlessly fulfill tasks. We are not comfortable with doing things for no reason. We need to be motivated by something specific in order to perform any task. We are not robots or dumb beasts, because we are human, EVERYTHING we do has to have a purpose. In the grand scheme of life and destiny and eternity, we desire to make a difference and to matter. We don't want to merely be a drop in a still pond, we want to make ripples. If life truly was nihilistic, then why live at all?
I talk about this on and off on this blog. Most of the time my thoughts on this aspect of the human condition are more like complaints about not making enough of a difference. Even my last post carried that theme throughout it as I described how pointless social advances have been.
D) Instilled inside of every human is the desire to learn more. I know that I have an incredibly strong desire to keep learning things. I'm trying to enjoy my Christmas break between semesters and yet I can't lay off of the introductory Japanese CDs or even learning about the human condition. My curiosity leads me to desire to understand what people are thinking at any given time, even though it is none of my business nor is it relevant to me. I am ALWAYS trying to learn things. Some humans may think they have been able to shut that part of themselves off, yet learning always remains even if it is merely learning about the present situation [What is the weather like outside? What does the future hold for me? What lead me to making that wrong decision?]

I wish I knew the specifics of this earlier on in my college career. It would have been much easier to think up arguments for all of those difficult papers I had to write--I could have merely talked about the human condition. Now, I have two strong topics: the Human Condition, and Rhetorical significance, and if I wanted to throw in a third, I could talk about an Explanation of Society--Those are my strong points (and probably in that order) and I'd imagine I could make a strong case on any one of those topics.

So...

Now that I have looked into the sun, what do I do with this new found enlightenment? How can I profit from this information and these skills?

Life is...Anti-climatic

I just got back home from a new year's "party" put on by the YSA division of my church (for 18-30 yr olds). There were a lot of people there, probably a thousand, but actually I think the average age of everyone there probably was closer to 18; I didn't see many people over 24.

I'm getting too old for this... Parties became lame when I hit 19. I used to not like dancing because I didn't know how to dance, now I understand the whole "dancing" thing, but I don't want to give it a try because it seems like something kids do. I want to say that I'm offended that I get grouped with people that age. I can see why some 23 year old young men are more like 19 year olds, but I'm not like that. I've always acted older than my age and I look forward to old age when there isn't a limit and people just see me as "old". I'm actually hoping I die young so that I don't have to see everyone around me turn to veg.

I'm really not sure why I went to this party. At parties there's a silent expectation that you'll meet some new friends or something exciting will happen, and although I did make some new friends, I'm remembering that I already have too many friends, and exciting things always happen at parties--too exciting of things for a calm, constant intellectual like myself. I don't really "relax" when I go to parties, I usually just get bored. I'm more of the type that has to create the party and be the center of attention, otherwise I retire, recede and disappear among the crowd. I'm sure I come off as quite boring and shy at big parties like that.
Actually, I'm sure I come off as boring and shy everywhere. I have my own circle in which I excel in: theater, classical events, strategic development meetings, anyplace where talking about deep concepts is commonplace including lectures, readings, and public speeches. Outside of that circle I'm kind of a no-body. I wouldn't say that list is comprehensive, but my point is that there are times where I'm not enjoying myself, and when I'm not enjoying things then people aren't enjoying me. [[*sigh* In a perfect world, I would always be entertained and then people would always enjoy me.]]
The truth behind all of this is that there are people out there who are incredibly interesting, fun, and exciting, but you'll never know that if you don't entertain them...


In more ancient times, politics had established customs and patterns that built relationships with people just by following the standard protocol. The best English word to describe this is "Tradition". The Japanese had tea ceremonies and public dinners including plays and singing. The English, similarly, had public dinners and bards and clowns. Scandinavia and the Vikings had dinner and sporting, including wrestling and drinking contests. In Judaism, the head of household would slaughter the fatted calf and hold a feast as well. The Romans had the gladiator games. Events, celebrations, ceremonies, feasts and dinners, &c. were all focused around the Rhetorical concept.
Holding a party was designed to convince and persuade people on a specific point using Kairos (proper timing) and an emotional argument. If the king wanted to persuade his new Thane of Cawdor that he was indeed grateful for his heroics and skill in the battle, and to model the thane's behavior for others to mimic, he would hold a feast in his honor (Macbeth). At the feast, the King and his closest friends as well as the new Thane and his wife, would sit at one table; everyone else would sit at another table where they could still honor their king and the guest of honor, but could mix and mingle among themselves. By attending an event like this, the guest would be persuaded to follow the thane's example and become a better person (or at least do better what the king wants). The thane would be persuaded to keep doing what they are doing and to not turn against the king, which is the reason Macbeth has such a traumatic time killing the king.

These weren't just "parties" for entertainment--there was no such thing as "entertainment" back then and people weren't ever "bored" with nothing to do; each "party" had a specific rhetorical purpose. The life of the commoner was just rough enough that they had to work day-in day-out in order keep food on the table and there wasn't any time to sit around. The wealthy land owners, too, were so busy planning and managing the workflow and upkeep of things that they didn't have time for entertainment.
What we today see as entertainment, would have been considered a rogue activity to society of several generations ago. Public houses, buildings established in each town for the benefit of the traveler so that they could purchase room and board, also had license and permit to sell alcohol. Since people out of town have a tendency to want to do things they wouldn't do in their home country, pubs became gathering places of sex, violence, and illegal practices. When the pubs became large enough, they incorporated live music and dancing, and freedom to behave riotously. THAT was the entertainment business. You entertain people from out of town. You celebrate those within.

Parties today are more like the pub scene--the bar scene. Event planners, of the kinds of events I opened this article with, focus more on sending their guests home happy than truly benefiting their lives. A ball, years ago, was designed to help the noble class mingle with potential mates, thus continuing the noble blood line and an event planner would have that specific purpose in mind. Commoners, when they had options of who to marry instead of the necessity to marry the only other person of the opposite sex in town, would hold various festivals and dances as well (the maypole for example).
Today, since we don't believe there is a ruling class and a common class (although I would argue that we do, it's just better hidden in rhetoric [what is upper class if not the rulers of our nation, economy, and culture? and what is lower-class if not the working common class?]), when we hold "balls," they aren't the same--after all, we are surrounded by eligible people now that class isn't an issue, why would we need to hold an event for people to pair off?
For that matter, why would we need to attend any kind of event if it doesn't entertain us?

Life is somewhat anti-climatic...
We fought, we rebelled, we gained our freedom, and then we freed the world. Now, people spout things like "human rights" and "entitlements"--"we want what we deserve!" Now that things have run full circle, all of those conflicts of the past that opened up doors for public education, freedom from unfairly seizing our property or money, accurate representation of the people and voting, ceasing oppression of minorities, &c. All of that seems kind of wasted... humanity built itself up to this "new, better world," and yet really at the core the only thing they want is to eat, drink, and be merry.
The only thing that society has changed are it's traditions and institutions. Now, instead of having our money seized by the king, our money is seized by a bi-polar government and the banks that rule our economy. One year Our government is staunch left, the next it's staunch right, re-correcting the changes of the previous year. Instead of heroic fire-fighters being honored by communities and magistrates, it takes a terrorist act for us to recognize that these outstanding citizens are volunteers. Soldiers get cheap medals, not titles. Instead of apprenticing we intern. Our education system is based around postponing life to teach general skills that have to be retaught specifically and retaught correctly by employers. Instead of being wealthy land owners with titles and obvious bloodlines, the leaders of our economy and politics have hidden, but obvious, bloodlines and hidden titles like M.B.A. at Harvard school of Business, Yale, or Princeton.

The only thing that's really changed in our society, aside from the names, is that we've gotten rid of a lot of good things in order to focus on being merry. I think society is confused by itself, and that's what makes life so anti-climatic. It's just not what it ought to be based on all the hard work, sweat and even blood put into it.