Vikings vs Dinosaurs

I used to be a big dinosaur and a little viking, but now I would say I've converted to my ancestral ways and am a full viking now. Dinosaurs are out and Vikings are in.

I'm not entirely sure what any of this means... Dinosaurs are big, deadly, sometimes fast, intelligent, sneaky, lethal, imposing, mythic, and lovable. Occasionally they'll throw out a Roar or RArr really loud. Sometimes they travel in packs or herds. They can be lazy or productive. And that's what makes them the perfect counter to vikings:

Vikings were huge compared to Romans, Greeks, Jews, Turks, and other Europeans--there is a tall gene in the viking blood that has penetrated every continent (pun intended). They were deadly, a quick stab or knock on the head could kill you. They were fast, raiding coastal towns and villages and hauling away their loot before any armies could come. They were intelligent, sneaky and cleaver with their attacks (I just read an interesting attack on a roman city where the viking king was put in a casket and jumped out giving his comrades swords and sacking the city from within).

They were lethal, imposing, and overall mythic. You hear about how dinosaurs lived before most humans, you find their bones and DNA in the ground, you see them in museums, but did you know that most of our days of the week are named after Viking Gods? Tyr's day, Odin's day, Thor's day, Freya day... The vikings blood can be found in 90% of the world's population. How mythic is that?

Finally, Vikings are lovable for many qualities that need not be named.
... [trail off]...

I've been on Facebook lately. I quit logging into facebook because it's a waste of my time, makes me feel involved with people I really am not involved with or care to be, and I am in open protest of the big social networks because I feel it is a severely inefficient way of communicating with people--call or text me if you want to learn about what I'm doing, how I'm doing, or if you want to be my friend, and I will do the same for you. --Facebook is a gossip network, and I'm opposed to gossiping in that way. [even email and snail mail is better than facebook, and yes, I'll handwrite you letters if you handwrite me letters]

But I got on today because I was informed that the timeline features are unlocked and almost mandatory, and considering that I use facebook for spreading around ideas (though never obtaining ideas), I figured I'd log in, update, and get out.

The above picture is what I posted on my facebook background--or whatever it's called. I think it shows the conflict inside of me: Am I a dinosaur or a viking?--I see no difference between this and when people are conflicted over being a ninja or a pirate or a werewolf or vampire, or zombie or human, or angry bird or pig, or plant or zombie...or I could go on. Anyway. My battle is with vikings and dinosaurs.

I'm being silly, and I must apologize for anyone who has wasted their precious time reading this article...what you're looking for can be found below, the really deep informative stuff...

Another reason that prompted my facebook visit was that my last article had a significant amount of buzz. The headline I had written for the facebook post was about how I imagined I wouldn't be getting married until I was 26-30 yeas old...
I think I've settled on that idea. It gives me plenty of time to become fully independent, it's about average (and I'm average aren't I?), there will be time for me to gather up all my necessities (before getting married a guy has to have all of his toys because he probably won't get anymore after he's wed), and, most importantly I think it's much better for me, on an emotional and a mental standpoint, to avoid any serious relationships until my date age range is out of the teens [(( Y / 2) +7) = date age range]. I've found that women are less mature than men in Utah. --actually, I take that back...women on average are less mature, however their maximum maturity level is significantly higher than the male maturity level maximum. --It's all across the board, but the mature female is very rare and the average is weighed down by the number of immature ones. Men are more constant in their maturity, their low is higher and their high is lower, meaning there is less variance and their average is higher than the female average. [[for all of your math nerds ;)]]

With that in mind, I have been conducting a SWOT analysis on my life and I realized a few opportunities that I should take advantage of, and that means being more specific in my game plan of life.

...[return to the trail]...
Oh ya, and did you know about viking society?

The Vikings were actually quite the geniuses. They were THE international businessmen of their time, the original pirates, they had amazing social advances that may even surpass our society, and they had superior rhetorical skills.

Because the viking homeland of Scandinavia isn't the most fertile land in the world, they were forced to resort to conducting business and traveling. Thankfully Scandinavia is all coast (and rivers) and they vikings invented the perfect boat early on: light, small, fast, and yet full of capacity (think sloop meets Ikea). They became experts of international travel, learned others' local languages, and had significant business acumen. Sure, the Romans were the politicians of the world, and the Turks were mathematical geniuses, the Greeks were the Philosophers, but picture a society where instead of being forced to be political you are forced to navigate the business world with all of its international laws, politics, cultures, &c. just to survive?
The Pirate issue needs to be clarified. Most experts believe that the vikings weren't purely raiders, but that conflicts in business lead them to raid, pillage, and plunder. When they came into a port and were hit with unfair tariffs, taxes, and price gouging, of course they were upset. The local city ruler would confiscate their possessions and because they were foreigners and pagans they'd be mistreated. It made them upset! And because they were bigger, better equipped, had plenty of courage (these were the guys who traveled to the new world through the coldest route possible--above the Arctic Circle) and were a hearty bunch, they did the thing that any human would: react. Just as you wouldn't spit on the mafia, steal their things, and inform them of new taxes, you wouldn't mess with a viking who wasn't attached to your "quaint" town and outnumbered your warrior population. Mostly, the vikings stole from Romans and Roman Catholics, who were the wealthiest snobs of that time.
Vikings were possibly more of an advanced society than America is today. Men and women were relatively equal. Women could divorce husbands for several things. They handled disputes the honorable way: first they'd ask for recompense and if they couldn't get it they'd engage in competition, such as wrestling. If the competition was rigged, they'd burn down their house. --sounds barbaric, but so is capital punishment in a certain light. Employers and their employees were relatively equal, most accounts include references to the employer and the employee being "brothers" in arms--how many bosses today would look after their employees the way a viking lord would?
Finally, Vikings were masters of a secret rhetoric. Our days of the week are named for viking gods as I already explained. Some of the most popular folktales are Norse and Scandinavian in origin (Hans Christian Anderson for example). But most importantly, without having written hardly anything down, we have an extensive knowledge of these people. When you drop the word "viking" in a conversation, people know exactly what it means, they may not know that vikings were the kings of the "Vi" or rivers, and Scandinavia is a land of swamps and rivers, but they know that they were some of the most rugged people in the world and that they were to be feared (they are feared in some early Christian texts under the reference North Men--men of the north).

But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The Vikings were masters of a secret rhetoric because they managed to assimilate into all of Europe and the New World peacefully. Rhetoric's purpose, after all, is to find consensus--the vikings retained their  homelands in Scandinavia (except from other vikings like the Danes or Rus) without battle, by convincing their enemies that they were exactly like them and that there is no need to fight when they could do business.

AND, they spread their DNA all over the world :)

I guess that makes them better (or at least equal to) the Mongols, the Romans, the Chinese, the Persians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, and the Americans; because while each of these "empires" were fighting and killing, the vikings were enjoying a simple lifestyle in which they could go anywhere and do anything without trouble--unless they wanted it.




----

For those of you who don't know, I have primarily Swedish blood in my veins (and the other dominant is Scott-English, which is a derivative of viking blood anyway) Ancestrally, I am a viking, not a dinosaur.

State of Union (Marriage)

[This was designed as a written speech and is supposed to be a "state of the union" address for the dating, relationship, and marriage world]

Good afternoon and thank you for giving this opportunity to speak. Today is February 15th, 2012. My name is Kyle Oakeson and I have the fortunate pleasure to present to you today the state of union, also known as "Why dating is so hard these days." I might also wish to add: "In Utah" to the title as it is specific to Utah dating, however, most of the information I will present today relates to people everywhere.
My goal in presenting this speech today is inform the general public of the present state of the dating and relationship world in which singles of post 2010 have to navigate.

I have structured my comments into four areas:

1. Relationships in relation to the Economy
2. Relationships in relation to Age, Modern Culture and the Media
3. Relationships in relation to Expectations of singles
4. The Shifting Domestic Social Structure and the Future of Dating

1. The latest shifts in the United States Economy have had a drastic impact on our perception and shape of relationships. The aging, Baby-Boomer workforce and the Great Recession have affected the Millennial Generation's potential to obtain the required financial stability and emotional security necessary to harbor healthy relationships. I will leave the specifics of this economic malfunction to economists and other experts who know little about humanity but plenty about quantifying the overarching shape of human society.

The result of this poor economy is that Generation Y, the largest generation so far, will have a harder time obtaining jobs than their parents or grandparents did at their age, and they will retire at a much older age. In a balanced economy, three generations do not exist equally in the workforce. As the older generation, in this case the Baby Boomers, retire from the highest tiers of the economy, the upper tier is replaced by the next generation, Generation X. Entry level positions and mid-level positions are then opened up to the youngest generation in the workforce, Generation Y. Unfortunately, because many Baby Boomers will not retire soon, it may be up to 9 years before they inhabit the same percentage of the workforce that the previous generation, the Matures, presently inhabit.

Financial stability is an aspect of our society's expectations for the family structure. Although the definition of a "family" has been under debate over the last ten years, being financially stable is silently implied as an aspect of family life. Since Gen Y will be carrying the burden of the economy for another few years, it is likely the majority won't obtain financial stability for a few more years as well. 

2. Aside from Gen Y's slower rise to financial stability, changes in culture and social structure contribute to an under developed single population. Greater expectations are placed on Gen Y to exceed the success of previous generations; they are expected to be better educated, harder working, and more wealthy than their parents and grandparents. At the same time, emotional demands from the media expect them to stay young.

The needs of our nation, in the education of its citizens, require the majority of them to receive some form of post-secondary, specialized education. Because more and more individuals are jumping straight from high school into college, they carry the same mindset, habits, and attitudes from high school into college and approach dating in college much the same way that they would dating in high school. And, because there is a lack of opportunity for them to gain independence, they have no need to mature and develop as well as no opportunity to mature and develop.

There is an overall lack of training in humanities courses at all education levels, K-12, and Post-secondary. Humanities are an essential part of our understanding each other. Relationships are founded on mutual understanding or, equally important, attempting to understand one another. The declining emphasis on the humanities has created a less relationship-savvy generation. There are no specific academic training courses on how to build relationships with other individuals and the previous two generations' failed relationships limit their credibility as teachers, which has created a social shift in the role that the family unit plays on society.

The family institution was anciently designed to harbor the development of good relationships with others, but today the family institution lacks authority, organization, and structure to aid in the development process. Typically, children would have looked to their parents for learning how to manage relationships but because many households are split homes and the nuclear family structure is diminishing, the teaching ethos of paternal and maternal family members has significantly diminished. Teaching does not occur, or is severely limited, when the teacher's authority is in question. The teaching capabilities of Baby boomers and Gen Xers was also constrained by having both parents work and away from home for significant periods of time, resulting in children having less "learning" time with their parents on how to form relationships. 

The amount of time needed for Gen Y to develop to the minimum level of maturity required for forming good, long-lasting relationships will be greater than that of the previous two generations. Gen Y faces pressure from the media to remain in an under mature state and enjoy a life without responsibility; this pressure is enforced in modern film plots and themes, reality television personalities, music lyrics, and dramatized lifestyles of the rich and famous.

The Media has a greater affect on Gen Y than any institution, including the family, school, and government. Gen Y grew up with television and high speed internet as well as social media, which granted them easy access to all of the world's information. Whenever they wanted to know something, they could look it up; but not everything on the internet is regulated. There is a lot of information on the internet and on television programming that is fallacious and unproven yet is presented in a way to sound authoritative. Because of the decreased role humanities education plays in our society, Gen Y is less capable of sorting out truth from untruth or logic from fallacy, and are more susceptible to mimic poor, observed behavior in the media and carry it nto their relationships with others. 

There have been attempts at formalizing the process of educating this generation in building relationships, but the teaching field is still in its infancy and lacks an organized disciplinary body. Instead, such educators operate as tv personalities and gain their accreditation by applying modern rhetorical theory to sway mass audiences. In this industry, the level of credibility equates to audience size. Although this system works, to an extent, to limit the teachers without talent and to promote those who have talent, it also permits a vast array of conflicting views on the dating and relationships subject and it creates a lack of unity in the core teachings.

3. Singles in post 2010 have greater expectations than previous population samples. Social networks have changed the way people view and approach socializing. Social advances in equality of minorities has an impact on the mores and norms of modern singles. The expectations of singles are both broadening and becoming more refined to the point that there is an overall lack of unified understanding on what singles expect when dating.

Social networks have changed how people make and keep friends and how they learn about other people. The invention of the social network is relatively new and has opened the door to meeting and making friends online who share similar interests and would otherwise never have come in contact with one another. As psychologists and neurologists continue to study the effects social networking has on the individual, we need to contemplate the effects it has on society as a whole.
Recent studies have indicated that social networking contributes to a more self-centered, ethnocentric society. While social networks operate on the guise that they bring people together, they in fact create barriers between establishing relationships with others. Instead of divesting time to get to know an individual, they can scan their social profile and form personal conclusions about that person. This makes it difficult for some people to escape the skeletons of their past and carve out a bright future because the history of their lives can be found online. Other studies indicate that social networking contributes to the growing number of depression diagnoses because people are more likely to compare themselves to the false personas of  others who seem to always be having a good time on their social networks. The comparisons that we make to other people create divisions between "us" and "them" and make forming diverse relationships difficult.

Social advances also influence the modern single's expectations of relationships. As the women's rights continue to equalize men and women, many question the male-female roles established anciently. The number of stay at home dads is on the rise as more and more women take up the role of primary bread winner. As the roles of males and females lose their boundaries, peoples' expectations out of relationships diversify with them, and finding others with shared beliefs becomes more difficult. For example, some women have taken to insisting that their husband stay at home while they take care of the kids, some men insist that their wives stay home to take care of the kids, and some men and women refuse to have children.
The Gay Rights Movements have equally complicated the dating and relationships world by broadening the types of relationship people may form. Men and women are no longer limited to pursuing only men, but may publicly pursue romantic relationships with men, women, or both men and women.

Overall there is a lack of unity behind what people expect out of a relationship. Building a relationship with another person requires sharing common goals and objectives and when people disagree on what they want out of a relationship it creates conflict that restricts the development of that relationship. Because more and more people have vast, complex goals that they are striving to achieve, they are often heading in different directions and refuse to develop relationships with others whose plans are incompatible. The self-centered social network culture has encouraged people to avoid compromising--a necessary component of any strong relationship.

4. Our society is diversifying on all fronts. Age has become less of an indicator of maturity than it did in the past. Political beliefs continue to spread across the continuum as people pick and choose the topics they value most. We are living in the Information Age where knowledge is readily available on the internet, and not just knowledge of practical facts and figures, but also knowledge about individuals and locales; all of which diversifies the knowledge, skills and abilities of singles.
In the past, the limited complexity of the social realm made finding the perfect match easier because more people shared similar beliefs and expectations. As our society begins to diversify, unless it also becomes less self-centered and more open to compromise, it will become more challenging to find the perfect match because there will be fewer people who share similar goals and beliefs.

The economy will continue to variegate society and we may see shifts in the percentages of our three class system. The average financial lifestyle of the typical bachelor, the unmarried eligible man or woman, will stagnate for the next few years until the economy takes off; this may, in turn, hinder the natural rate at which people get married.

The role of the family institution is changing. Less families can afford to have one parent stay at home, more families are having children without being married, and the number of divorces are rising. These changes to the the family unit are contributing to the diversity of expectations singles have for their future families.


Although this report sounds bleak in some aspects, the important thing to realize is that the average American Male now gets married around age 28, and the average American Female now gets married around age 26. Singles should expect to wait longer before getting married and be patient, eventually the economy will clear up, any changes to the social structure of society will be beneficial to those who adapt with them, and no matter how selfish people are they always succumb to isolationism and are willing to make any compromise in order to have a relationship.

St. Valentine's Day

14 Feb 2012

I know quite a few people who have a birthday today.
I'm wearing a hot pink tie.
I sometimes like to tell people that today is my favorite holiday. --It is, but then, I'm not too partial to holidays...In today's post I want to share what I like Valentine's Day. But first, a little background on holidays:

Holidays are traditional, cultural celebrations; but more than that, holidays are excuses to engage in specific behavior and reflect on the past. They help us to remember. Holidays are sanctioned by Leaders, Kings and Rulers.
Neurologists and psychologists who study memory have found a correlation between colors and memory, the result of which is that we are more likely to remember something if there is an extraordinary color associated with the memory. Highlighting answers in textbooks helps us to remember because of the color association and the scenes in movies that we remember most often have vivid colors. The real relationship is that we remember things easier when they hold a certain significance to us.
Because Holidays are unique, they help us to remember things that happened to us during the year. Our brains associate experiences as "before" or "after" a specific holiday, though we may not remember the specific date of the event. In other words, it's easier for us to connect that our grandmother passed away before Christmas because she wasn't able to attend the Christmas celebration. I remember specific peoples' birthdays because of holidays, such as that my mother's is before Valentine's and my fathers is before Halloween.
Because Holidays happen annually (proper holidays happen exactly every 12 months, no more, no less), they help us to reflect on our past. We remember more easily, each New Years, what we were like the year previous and the year before that and &c. We also remember the Valentine's days that we were single and when we were not. Holidays help us to think about where we came from, where we are now, and how we got there--and hopefully, they help us to commit to a better future.
I find it interesting that they are sanctioned by Leaders, Rulers, and Kings. It shows that Holidays require a certain level or order and co-operation. Christmas is acknowledged each year because Christian leaders supported it initially. Over time, holidays become tradition but initially it requires someone in a position of power to start a holiday. Even holidays like Independence Day or Patriot Day require leadership, even though it appears on the surface that they are simply going to happen.


I like this Holiday. It encourages people to love and be proper and respectful to their partners. It also encourages people without partners to recognize the state of their relationships or to dig their roots deeper to resist relationships. The most important thing Valentine's day does is it forces people to act in relation to Love and Relationships.
Honestly, I would be willing to gamble that the real reason why some people might dislike this holiday is that they want to celebrate it "properly" as opposed to how they are forced to celebrate it. In most peoples' minds, Valentines day ought to be celebrated by spending time with their Chosen Love, the person they choose to love at that moment who chooses to love them back. The issue is that most people think no one chooses to love them on that day. Instead of opening up, exposing themselves to risk, and offering themselves to someone else, they hide and dig deep. Illogic: If you ought to be celebrating the day with someone you choose to love and who chooses to love you back, you're going to instead turn your back on everyone you love or might love you and ignore the world?

The logical thing to instead of closing your heart off, to open it up more, take more risks, and expose yourself MORE to the world.

When Christmas comes around and you can't afford a tree or a fancy meal, what do you do? You try to celebrate as best as you can to celebrate. Charlie Brown, in two Christmases, served his friends popcorn and candy, and he finds a beat up tree and decorates it. More importantly, Charlie Brown spends time with his friends whom he loves.

Instead of moping around on Valentine's day, you should be MORE open, more friendly, more kind, more caring, and more loving. You should let other people love you instead of fearing the situation or running from it, and you should take steps to let them love you. That's what Valentine's day is all about, Charlie Brown!

On Valentines day I like to 1) wear pink, red and/or black--it forces people to remember the day and talk about it. 2) I like to tell everyone happy valentines day, because chances are very good that I'm the only one who is going to tell them that all day. 3) I like to be a little entertainer and go out of my way to entertain people--it opens me up to the world and can really make someone else's day. 4) I like to think about my past, present, and future--it sounds cheesy, but it's no different than
By doing these things on Valentines day, the #1 most hated holiday, I set myself apart from the rest of the world. People are more likely to remember me and associate me with valentine's day--I'll have top of mind presence.

Life is... Unsociable

I remembered that I forgot to follow up with this article and I have some time to write up a little bit. [DISCLAIMER: This article is deep and abstract.]

The point I made in my "Life is: Suppressed" article was that our society has made advances in technology and culture that don't contribute to our being social. Social networks, for example, don't help you to socialize, they help you to stay in touch without socializing. In other words, instead of calling up your friends or dropping by their houses, you instead check out what they wrote on twitter or on facebook.
I think this is a grave error on the side of definition. My definition of socialization includes growing closer bonds, discovering personality, and sharing experiences in the present.

I say specifically in the present because of my understanding of what I call vantage points: No two people experience the same experience in the same way. This is attributed to physical vantage point (I.E. what they see) but also their level of understanding at that point in time, and their past experiences--for sake of argument, those two are the same thing [you only know what you know because of your past experiences].--To illustrate: when you are little, everything in the world seems different than when you are older; things that you can't explain and are mesmerized by when you are young are demystified when you are older, and parents don't experience things in the same way that their children do.
We learn from one another when we share our experiences with one another. Even something as simple as mathematics is learned by sharing what we know about it based on our past experiences (1+1 has always been 2 to us). One step further: when two people look at a picture, they are both perceiving the same thing. Creativity, the stuff that allows us to make up our thoughts, is shared between the Artist and person A, and between Artist and person B. One more step: When person A and B talk about the painting, they are sharing their experiences with one another, what they like, don't like, what they think it means, etc.

Even one more step:  Let's say you aren't looking at a painting, but the real life event, say a man throwing a frisbee to his dog. There is no Artist, it's just A and B. A and B, without verbally communicating, are perceiving the same thing. This is a precious moment because although they are experiencing different emotions, A is impressed by the dog, B is impressed by the photogenic qualities of the light reflecting off of the dog, they are experiencing this moment together and it is a moment that cannot be repeated due to the 4th dimension (time). It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The experiences they are experiencing right in that moment, for the first time, they can never be replaced--they can't go back in time and change what they felt.

After the moment has passed and they are away from the scene, A and B can have a discussion. A mentions he was impressed by the dog, B mentions she was impressed by how beautiful the scene played out. B recalls that, yes, the dog was impressive and she understands how A feels about it because she can recall all of her perceptions of that moment and can re-experience it all in her head. Although B experienced the scene primarily as how "beautiful" it was, the true magic that occurred was that she was simultaneously experiencing ALL things--as far as her ability to perceive is concerned--but that she chose a dominant experience because of her personality and past experiences.

"As far as her ability to perceive is concerned"--what I mean is, people with better or worse vision see things more clear or less clear than others. Being in a different location can prevent you from seeing a cheap shot in a boxing match. &c. Nonetheless, she absorbed all of that information, but her brain processed it in a different way.

A bond was also created between A and B because they both shared the same moment in time. Sharing the same taste, sound, smell, touch, or sight is fantastic, and artists are coming up with new ways all of the time to portray these things, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot replicate time. Time is not an empirical sense and yet it is something we want to share with other people. Part of our human condition of isolation bugs us and urges us to share all of our sense with other people, yet time is impossible to share.

I know what you're thinking: photographs and films can bridge the gap between time and space; but you're wrong. When someone creates a photograph, they are CREATING a photograph. They are making a new replica of a moment of time. Philosophically speaking, the moment that a replica is made, it ceases to be the original and is left to be governed by it's own forces. A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

(translation: This is not a pipe)

What you are looking at is a replica of a pipe, but not really, you're looking at a replica made into digital form, stolen from the internet and pasted into this article then transmitted over your monitor. --you're looking at hundreds of rays of light.

The point is. If it isn't real and original, it's just not the same.

Socializing on the internet is different from socializing in real life. We only perceive as much as can be converted into digital form and typically artists and digital scanners like to only take a portion of the whole so that they can emphasize certain parts of it.

Don't be fooled. The "social" experiences you are having over the internet are not real, they are knock-offs of reality. True, you may still experience things from them, but my purpose in writing this article is to leave the question over your head: Which is better: to socialize in real life and build better, stronger bonds and connect with other people, or socialize on the internet, where it is easier, but only share mild to weak bonds and possibly not connect with other people?

It's a lot to think about. Feel free to talk to me in person and I'll persuade you some more.

My Only Frustration

The thing I find most frustrating about: <deep breath> Life-America-My World-Society-Women-my Surroundings, culture. --it's really just a cultural thing-- is how contradicted and ironic everyone is.

Women like to profess all these ideal things like eternal love, and how they're going to stick around, no matter what, but then...they leave when things get rough. I put Rihanna's Umbrella up because I know 90% of girls "<3" this song, not necessarily for the beat, though the beat is amazing and the singer too, they like this song for what is MEANS. (actually, a lot of girls like this song but not Rihanna, and they don't think she's a good singer...bah!)

But even Rihanna didn't stay friends with her Chris Brown--Therefore, this song is just about marketing. Like, oh my gosh, she's such a fake.




No, really. Men and Women (yes, men) like to say one thing but do the opposite. Actually, they like to say whatever sounds good and do whatever feels right (need I bring up relativism?) People are just plain weird. They can say they really care about you and are good at listening to all of your problems and want to help you, and then the next day silence. The next few days, silence.
Either people are quick to forget, they're quick to not care, or they are stunned. People who are stunned don't know what to do, so they don't do anything. This week I listened to a recorded interview of one of the police officers during 9/11. He mentioned a moment on that day where he had evacuated from a burning building because he didn't have any support, and when he got outside he found that everyone had retreated to a hill. When he got to the hill he said something to the effect of: "What are you all doing standing around, come on, there are people trapped and on fire in a building over here" and then he turned back around and ran back to the building, followed by many fire fighters and police officers. --These are trained professionals who are supposed to understand crisis management and help people. That's their job, and yet they were STANDING AROUND just watching. The thing that spurred them to action was one police officer reaming them out, taking a stand, and then returning to his duty.
--Now, I'm not trying to razz on the heroes of 9/11. Far from it! I'm trying to say that people can get so caught up on watching or doing their own thing that they don't realize that they need to rise to action.

I don't know though, on some things I really don't think people care. Everyone has just enough conscious in them to react whenever bad things happen, but deep down they lack the follow through in their caring to do anything about it. As an example, they might say: it's horrible that your husband is a drunk, let's hold an intervention, but then a week after the intervention they haven't checked up on him, they don't try to help him, they are quick to not care. If someone were to tell you they had suicidal thoughts, of course you would react at first, but then a week later would you ask them how they were doing? Would you call them a month later to see if they were alright? --maybe you would only do that with people close to you...
Shit, how do you think you get close to people?

Maybe people aren't as bad as they seem and they just forget. What a shame. What a shame. Forgetting people should be one of the greatest sins of all.


Back to my opener:
It's one thing to say all sorts of common quotes and its another to do them:
 to profess that you're the most loyal thing since bees and honey, but to leave when you think things are tough.
 to profess that you like to help people, but to never help people
 to profess you're an extrovert, when really you're scared to talk to new people
 to profess you know someone...who you've never talked to!
 to profess you're an introvert, when really you're an obnoxious extrovert who just wants to complain
 to profess you're an optimist, when you're so negative
 to claim you aren't lonely when you really are
 to claim you're sane when you're tripping out all the time
 to claim you're not depressed, when you really are
 to say you're not a drama queen or king when you cause the most drama in your sphere
 to say you're a friend, and then to walk away


How do I know I have no friends? because the only people who voluntarily talk to me each day are people who need something from me: My expertise, Me to borrow them money or pick something up from the store, Me to tell them what they're doing wrong, Me to listen to them, Me to work for them--for free, Me to offer my opinion, Me to assure them they're doing things right.

Sure, I enjoy being reliable, I enjoy being trusted, I enjoy it when my opinion matters, but I have needs too in this world.
Why do I stay up late at nights to post articles like this one? Because it's therapy for me. I have no friends who I could tell this stuff to. I have no friends who would pretend to listen to me. I have no friends who I could trust to pick up something from the store from me. I have no friends who are "experts" at anything 'useful' to me. I have no friends who would lend me money. Today, I didn't even have a friend who would work for me for money--let alone for free.

I suppose my biggest frustration with life is that people don't do what they say, and it's not that they are lying, it's that they are delusional... I want to live in a world of truth--the full truth. But as I pointed out in my past article  once I know full truth, THEN I want to live in a fantasy land.
Or rather, once I know that I'm not perfect, that I'm a social recluse who is open with everyone, enjoys talking and making appearances and first impressions, is comfortable in my own skin regardless of the situation, and that there isn't anyone out there like me or who knows what I go through--Once I come to accept all that as the truth, then I want to set it aside and do whatever the hell I feel like until it comes my time for action. It's hybrid relativism I suppose... I do whatever I want whenever I want but only until something BIG happens and then I do what I know is true.

Why?
Because no one is reliable. Not like me. And I think I'm only reliable because I hate that other people aren't reliable. I do what I say, I become what I want to be, what I say I want to be. I take honesty to a whole new level--or rather, I used to. I feel pretty confident that I have the truth with me, and honestly, knowing the truth doesn't do shit for me. It hurts me more than it helps me.

IMPORTANT: Don't "Fight for the Future"

The following was an email I received for signing up to fight the "Stop Online Piracy Act" in America. I am strongly opposed to this letter, and if you're an American, you should be too.

Hi--
Together, we beat SOPA in a huge victory for internet freedom.  But this Saturday, internet freedom protests are breaking out in over 200 cities across Europe.  Why?
Because the companies behind SOPA are using international trade agreements as a backdoor to pass SOPA-style lawsSOPA's supporters are pushing two agreements: ACTA and TPP¹.  ACTA would criminalize users, encourage internet providers to spy on you, and make it easier for media companies to sue sites out of existence and jail their founders.  Sound familiar?  That's right, ACTA is from the same playbook as SOPA, but global.  Plus it didn't even have to pass through Congress².
TPP goes even farther than ACTA, and the process has been even more secretive and corrupt.  Last weekend (we wish this was a joke) trade negotiators partied with MPAA (pro-SOPA) lobbyists before secret negotiations in a Hollywood hotel, while public interest groups were barred from meeting in the same building.³Trade agreements are a gaping loophole, a secretive backdoor track that--even though it creates new laws--is miles removed from democracy.  Trade negotiators are unelected and unaccountable, so these agreements have been very hard for internet rights groups to stop.
But now the tide is turning.  Fueled by the movement to stop SOPA, anti-ACTA protests are breaking out across the EU, which hasn't ratified ACTA.  The protests are having an impact: leaders in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have backtracked on ACTA.⁴  Now a massive round of street protests in over 200 cities is planned for this Saturday February 11th.We're planning an online protest this Saturday to support the protests in the streets.  Why?  Because together we can drive millions of emails to key decision makers--and start tipping the scales like we did on SOPA.
Can you take part?  Click here to get the code to run on your site!We just built an ACTA & TPP contact tool, and it's not just a petition.   It's code for your site that figures out the visitor's country and lets them email all their Members of European Parliament--the politicians who will be voting on ACTA in June--or the trade negotiators behind TPP.  This direct contact between voters and their officials, driven by websites of all sizes, was instrumental in the fight against SOPA.  We can use the same tactics to defeat ACTA & TPP, but we need your help!
Support the street protests with a flood of emails to the officials responsible for ACTA & TPP.  Get the code for your website!Don't have a website?  Tell officials in your country to scrap ACTA & TPP!   And spread the word about Saturday's protests! This is going to be tough fight.  But we need to make secretive trade agreements harder to pass than US law.  If we don't, our internet's future belongs to the lobbyists behind SOPA.  
This is just the beginning,
--Holmes Wilson, Tiffiniy Cheng, Joshua Blount & the whole Fight for the Future team.
P.S. This map of ACTA street protests in Europe is amazing. The largest has almost 50,000 RSVP's!
Sources:
1. For more information on ACTA, read these excellent articles from Techdirt and La Quadrature du Net. For information on TPP, read this Ars Technica piece. For video, watch this.
2. Obama's signing of ACTA may have been unconstitutional. See Anti-counterfeiting agreement raises constitutional concerns and Techdirt.
3. Hollywood gets to party with TPP negotiators, public interest groups get thrown out of the hotel.4. Ars Technica: Czech, Slovak governments backing away from ACTA, too.

The reason why you should be opposed to interfering in Europe is simple: America does not rule the globe; American Capitalism does. The MPAA is one of the most powerful capitalist organizations in the world because they control the symbols and culture of society. Broadcast News Companies, some of whom also support his, control the other important symbols in our society. To fight against these companies is to fight against American Capitalism.

Here is how:
America has become a dominant nation not just because it built a powerful navy in the Progressive Era and continued to control through military might. America became a dominant nation because of it's journalism and it's financial institutions.
Yellow Journalism spawned here. It lead to conflicts with Cuba, Spain, and the United States. Since then, the United States has put more strict regulations on journalism. America realized the power that symbol generators (the media) had, and the people in power vetoed. When SOPA came about, the American public, being the power behind America, vetoed as well.
Banks and other financial institutions are the second component to American's global power network. You don't know this, but there are several very powerful, very wealthy banks that reside in the U.S. that affect infrastructure projects throughout the globe. Without providing nation-states with a "bank" to borrow money and repay money, massive infrastructure and life-changing advances would not be feasible in third-world countries such as in South America, Africa, and Asia. This is a good thing. The more developments a country can create the better the living conditions of those countries and thereby stabilizes those regions.

Banks and the Media are powerful, and according to the principles of Democracy, those who are in power should rule while those who are out of power (I.E. Minorities) should abide by the rules of the majority.
America is not the majority on a global perspective, just like no single state is the majority in the United States. All of the states work together UNITED towards the same things, but each state is unique, each state is different. Is it fair for Missouri to reach out it's governing hand and tell Florida how to run? Do people in Missouri oppose some of the practices in Florida? Yes, but that doesn't mean they should rally and protest certain state laws, and if you didn't know, Missourians don't have the right to vote on state laws in Florida.

So is it fair for America and Americans to rally and oppose certain laws in Europe? No, it is not fair. But, is it fair for American Capitalists, who have global corporations such at the movie industry or the financial industry, to engage in politics in Europe? Yes, it is fair. Why? Because they have an established presence there and all they are trying to do is exercise their political freedom.--They are doing EXACTLY what a good citizen does: they are trying to push laws that are in their favor by rallying the majority.

What is the difference? --Jurisdiction.

America, the country, does not have the right to tell other countries what to do. (this gets tricky but follow with me, because we could tangent and talk about how if a cruise missile were pointed at a country and they were told to back down, then America may actually have some dominion over that country and thereby have the right to tell them what to do). The American people, who get their global power from being UNITED citizens in a geographic region all abiding by laws that grant them power, do not have more power than their united body (the United States).
Therefore, American people do not have jurisdiction over other countries.

International Corporations, on the other hand, do have jurisdiction. Why? Because they fall into both countries' laws. Legally, they have phantom power to be considered "citizens" of all countries simply because they have a formal document endorsed by the country they reside in that acknowledges their power.


Long story shot: If you support what "Fight for the Future" is trying to get you to support, you are overstepping your bounds. You are attempting to engage in the politics of another nation who does not recognize your jurisdiction. You are the equivalent of a person who votes for a law or a ruler in another state  simply because you crossed the state line.
It is not ethical to engage in European politics unless you have dual citizenship. "Let the Professionals handle this." I.E. Let the capitalist system work and let the democratic system work. Do not send monetary aid or volunteer your time or any other resources (including websites). Let Europe handle Europe's affairs in the way that they see fit. If the majority supports ACTA, then so be it, but if the majority doesn't they should reserve the right to fight against it without your assistance.

<Insert political comic of France yelling at America for overstepping it's bounds on global affairs>

The Truth and the Truth of Lies

Ryan Tedder, the singer/songwriter behind One Republic admitted in an interview that the meaning of this song is the question: do you want to hear big truths about life, or do you want to hear what will make you feel good at the end of the day?

Sometimes the truth is what we need to know, or think we need to know.
Sometimes we don't want to know the truth, we just want to be happy.

If we are constructors of our own realities and everything that matters to us, then I can see a need for both: sometimes we want to be told lies because it makes more sense, but other times we want to know the truth, because it helps us progress and find closure.
Then again... only knowing the happy lies can bring us as much closure as the truth can


It's an odd balance.





I've been working on a project recently about the human experience known as life. We know we exist because we can think, as one philosopher put it. But how do we choose what to think about? Aren't there triggers that prompt our thoughts? And how do we know that we are alive and not dead while we are thinking?

I don't wish to spoil the project right now, but let me just say that it pertains to empiricism, constructionism, human relationships, the power of thought, positive thinking, the human condition, and human emotions.

The project, which I hope to turn into a 90 min documentary or art-film, begs the question: Are the feelings I feel important, even if they are not based on reality? And I would argue that yes, everything we feel, everything that we experience and perceive, they are important to us, and not just to us individually, but they are important to the progression of mankind because of their triggering effect in other peoples' lives.

To live is to experience as much as to think is to exist. I know I am still alive because I am still experiencing things.

Whether you are awake or dreaming, the experience you are having IS relevant to your future. Modern psychological science is slowly catching up to that statement of truth. You have the ability to live lifetimes in your dreams--a place where memories and symbols collide. Some people find truth in their dreams that they could not find in reality. Our minds are intricate and complex.

Tedder exposed something deep and truthful that I can really relate to:
Is it better for me to focus on the truth, on the things that are "profound" and eternal?
Or is it better for me to focus on telling people the things they want to hear, the things they need to hear, even if those things are not the truth, even if those things are false? Should I endorse a make believe life in which the people are happy so long as they can maintain that reality, or should I endorse a very real life in which people know the way the world works and how humans work, but are happy only when their situations are happy and are sad when they are truly sad situations? --This all ties back to how truth is subjective.

Right now I'm struggling to know which is better, and honestly I'd prefer a world in which both co-exist in harmony: a place where people can talk about the truth and not fear it, not shy from it, not run from it, and yet not be condemned by it but instead embrace it, as well as in that same place the possibility of living in a fantasy and choosing to ignore everything that is wrong, everything that is bad. I would love to live in a world where even though the truth may be known, no one chooses to follow it because it makes their lives more difficult and more harsh.

The problem is... it's a very lonely place. Because the moment that you start clinging to the truth, people want to follow the truth and only the truth, they want to live by the truth and be condemned by the truth because at least their lives would be constant. People who want the truth don't want to be lied to, no matter how much better it could make their lives. They especially don't want to lie to themselves, even if it could improve their attitude and perspective of life. But, people who live in a fantasy, they want to remain there, it is their place, it is their home, and they will accept whatever illogical fallacies can keep them there. They will justify their behavior, they will disguise the truth as lies and they will ignore the truth because they are afraid it will condemn them.

You see--there is no middle ground. And because there is no middle ground, there is no one there. No one who would agree with me that there is a possibility for a wonderful life in which truth and lies co-exist. That is because morals and ethics always come into play. Is it okay to lie to your family about your discovery that you have cancer, if it means that the chemo therapy would pull your family apart? Would it not be better to keep the cancer a secret to your family and to die the natural way than to have them argue with you about whether you should prolong your life? Personally, I would not judge anyone who took that route. However, there will always be someone to argue that those conflicts between family are necessary; that somehow they make the family grow closer together, and they reveal more truth or the way that life SHOULD be. But my argument is again: if the family was comfortable with knowing the truth, and everyone in the family embraced it and didn't allow it to affect them, then wouldn't THAT bring them closer together, wouldn't THAT make them have a stronger bond?
You see, it isn't the conflict that strengthens the bond, it is the acceptance that strengthens the bond. But you can also choose to accept a lie as truth and to act on it as though it were truth and YOU as well as everyone who believes it with you, are perfectly fine. Who is lying, the Communist or the Democracist, when they claim their government type is the best type of government?

The reason why I would be so accepting of this is because I know both the truth and the truth of lies.

I have observed an interesting phenomenon--I say phenomenon but really, knowing what I know, there is nothing phenomenal about it, it simply is, it's a truth: sometimes people are held together because they have gone against the grain, sometimes people are held together because they have gone with the grain together. For example: Jesse James and Frank James had a strong brotherly bond because they engaged in outlaw acts, but tennis players build brotherly bonds together when they compete for championships and follow all of the rules. Are they not the same bond manifested in different ways?


I suppose all that I ask out of life is that I find someone--a female (for several obvious reasons)--who desires to live a life of fantasy in which we both know the full truth and are thankful for it, but only use it to capture us when our fantasies are inadequate.

I don't want a life full of truth, or a life full of fantasy, but I do want a companion on my journey who can help me and I can help her live the fantasy or live the truth when one or the other is necessary.

Life is...Changing

When I started this blog, I wrote an article about how the universe is falling, how WE are falling. Everything is changing in life and I don't mean this in any evolutionary sense. Things aren't changing to survive, things aren't changing because they have to. Things are changing because we don't presently understand the way life works.

There are three governing forces that control change: 1) time, 2) needs, 3) wants. They aren't like switches or triggers that get flipped or pulled they're ALWAYS happening, and so in a sense, these forces are forcing change.

1) Objects, emotions, thoughts, they all have a time limit. Our entire planet, our bodies, there is a time limit placed on them. We can't live forever, we can't always be happy, and the moment that we discover some eternal truth, that's it. It takes one moment to realize something profound, and once we realize it, we are changed forever.
I wrote an article previously on enlightenment. I attempted to explain that once you find enlightenment, life doesn't suddenly end, just that you start to experience life at a heightened level, and everything you previously knew or thought you knew almost doesn't count--but at the same time it does count. People who find enlightenment, they don't avoid negative situations, negative feelings, negative thoughts, they just find peace and acceptance with them and have an easier time overcoming them.
Having a time limit means everything you old in your hands, everything you experience, it has an end and will melt away. Need I refer back to the human condition again? The whole world will roll up like a scroll at some point, I know that much for sure, death happens, people leave, when we discover meaning we find that we need to find new meaning of something else, it is unquenchable, and on and on.

2) Needs force change. Our needs change over time. When something runs out, we need to replace it; that applies to physical things as well as mental, emotional, social, even spiritual. Why does it hurt so bad for so long when we separate from a loved one? Because we realize that we NEED certain things that that loved one provided for us and until we can replace them, we'll remain the same way. If you quit your faith you'll quickly find that you need something to replace it. When you lose the things that once made you happy, you are forced to find something that will make you happy once again. Your needs force you to change, they force organizations to change, they force everything in life to change.

3) You wants are just like your needs, except wants are that extra stuff that you're working for that don't qualify as a need. I don't need to make a lot of money to obtain everything I want from life, but I want a lot of money because I don't want to change my mind later and not have it. Wanting things isn't bad, it just requires change to have it.

In a more grand scale, in order for anything to exist in this life, it has to change. To have seasons, the earth has to change--it rotates around the sun. But it can't just rotate around the sun perfectly, it is slowly drifting further and further from the sun; and the sun further from the center of the universe. That's just how life works.

In essence, we are all falling, a symbol for something much more grand; and this blog is titled: when 1 falls. You are one, and you're always falling, whether you want to admit it or not.

Fight Terrorism

Terrorism is the cause of manipulative rhetorical practices. It's full of fallacies. It often uses a beliefs system. But more importantly, it pits the recruit's beliefs against 'the enemy.' Essentially, what is really taking place is one person with personal agendas, uses their rhetorical power to convince another human being to enact his or her plans in his or her behalf.

The lower dregs of society are always the easiest to manipulate with rhetoric however, they aren't the only ones who are easy targets. People who perceive themselves as oppressed, extremists in any particular belief system who are easily subject to emotional pleas, and even people who are merely looking for a quick fix--both drug users and addicts as well as anyone financially strapped. Simply put, if you can be bought, are over sympathetic, or have illogical belief systems, you are an easy target for manipulative rhetorical practices (MRPs).

Terrorism happens when a person's agenda is to scare or terrorize someone else. Terrorists typically fight dirty, they would rather hire someone else (using MRPs) than do the fighting themselves. There is a sense that terrorism works in the dark places while open war works in the light places. Metaphorically, it can be said that Terrorists work in darkness.

The point of this brief article is that anyone can become a terrorist.

Everyone has a belief system, and with just one life event, that belief system can dominate their life. Take, for instance, the Christian who's unborn child dies and they blame God for it. While they're blaming god for all of their problems, someone could apply just the right kind of rhetoric to convince them that god worshiping society inadvertently inflicted more pain on them during their time of need, and that person could be converted into raging acts of cruelty to other Christians. You think this is far fetched?
How about the guy in Sweden who killed several Islamic school children late last year because he claimed that the over immigration in Scandinavia--all of Europe-- by Islamic immigrants were causing adverse political changes to the whole structure of society. --Was that not MRP? The guy even claimed he was part of a secret Templar-like organization!

But let's not say Terrorist.
If you're being manipulated, the person probably doesn't have your best interests in mind.
So really, instead of fighting terrorism, let's fight manipulation. And manipulation is any time someone convinces you to do something that isn't in your best interests. That includes SOME marketing campaigns (which are illegal, but people still get away with them), and it includes any kind of shaman, preacher, or magician who can predict your fortune if you give them part of your money.

The only way to fight manipulation is to be a savvy rhetorician--you can't fight words with anything other than words, and you definitely can't fight thoughts without other thoughts.

A la: You can't fight terrorist thoughts without anti-terrorist thoughts.