Which is better?
Forcing people to earn your respect, or respecting people who do things on their own accord without force of manipulation. -- 6/23/2012
--- It's been a long time since I Wrote that and I'm not sure where I was going to go with that idea, but I have a little bit of spare time to write and figure I'll expand.
I think it is better to grant everyone respect first, and then have them lose it when they do things to harm you/against you. In other words, treat everyone as a friend and then when they prove otherwise, take your respect away from them,
The alternative seems to be treat everyone as an enemy and until they do things to assist and benefit you, don't give them respect.
That type of world just seems too harsh, too scary, too dark, and purposeless. If we went through life in a cold-war state of affairs I don't think it would be good at all. I don't think we should attack neutral bodies, nor should we describe neutral bodies.
A person is your friend until they get motions of greed or jealousy or refuse to work through conflicts.
There is a philosophical accord that says it is unethical to fire upon someone until they fire on you. This is the dilemma police forces have. They must perceive the fear of deadly force before they are legally protected to make the decision to fire their weapon.
In the movies, they disregard this accord. Soldiers and police forces, detectives, even mercenaries engage in war and fighting before they see any sign of threat. They will pull weapons on people who are running away and tell them not to move or they'll shoot--this kind of cultural portrayal is silly though and to the trained individual (one who understands these ramifications) such characters can be construed to be excessively agressive, violent, irrational, and 'non-benevolent'. I think a good story would reserve such characters for the 'bad' guys or the 'noir' types (where character are notoriously neutral-but-self-serving).---But I think in this day and age people understand that noir movies are not accurate depictions of the real world and I've seen most contemporary noir films transform to be blatantly exaggerated[such as sci-fi worlds or larger-than-life characters]
No.
Respect should be given to everyone. Peace should be the first response. alw
Friday, December 4, 2015
Make a man: friendship
I'm still on my quest to determine "What makes a Man" and "What makes a Woman" aside from the physical.
One thing I discovered was the topic of friendship.
Men approach making friends as though you have to earn friendship. Particularly when friendshipping with someone they are attracted to, they will place priority on determining if they are friendship quality, and if not they proceed to determine if that person is 'sex' quality.
In other words, men are comfortable sleeping around and not forming real friendships, but if the candidate is friendship quality, then they will build a friendship that (if romantically stable) will include sexual components.
Women, on the other hand, tend to do the opposite. They gauge whether the other person is sex-quality material and if not they proceed with building a friendship with that person.
Women are comfortable making friends with everyone and not having sex, but if the candidate is sex quality then they might just build a friendship with the sex.
Think of it this way:
Women hold sex as more valuable
Men hold friendship as more valuable
When men give friendship, it's more valuable than sex
When women give sex, it's more valuable than friendship
One can assume that this comes from the deep rooted risk factors for the genders, --I.e. cavewomen who have sex and get pregnant it is a greater risk. caveMen who develop friendships and enter dangerous situations with those friends, it is a greater risk.
One thing I discovered was the topic of friendship.
Men approach making friends as though you have to earn friendship. Particularly when friendshipping with someone they are attracted to, they will place priority on determining if they are friendship quality, and if not they proceed to determine if that person is 'sex' quality.
In other words, men are comfortable sleeping around and not forming real friendships, but if the candidate is friendship quality, then they will build a friendship that (if romantically stable) will include sexual components.
Women, on the other hand, tend to do the opposite. They gauge whether the other person is sex-quality material and if not they proceed with building a friendship with that person.
Women are comfortable making friends with everyone and not having sex, but if the candidate is sex quality then they might just build a friendship with the sex.
Think of it this way:
Women hold sex as more valuable
Men hold friendship as more valuable
When men give friendship, it's more valuable than sex
When women give sex, it's more valuable than friendship
One can assume that this comes from the deep rooted risk factors for the genders, --I.e. cavewomen who have sex and get pregnant it is a greater risk. caveMen who develop friendships and enter dangerous situations with those friends, it is a greater risk.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Gender Roles--A new conclusion
A year or two ago I set out to study modern gender; or rather, what modern culture sees as gender. --I hold a belief in a Rational Evolution of Society, meaning that society rationally evolves or it does not change unless it makes sense to change, and that this rational society "knows best" about the particular topic. In other words: The more society's opinion evolves, the closer it gets to the platoian Truth of the topic.
Gender and sexuality has been around for a long time. It has been studied for a long time and there is a diversity of opinions on the matter. I wanted to find the platoian Truth--the root of what it means to be Male or Female. My quest was prompted by what I thought was strange: if society advanced to the point that there were no differences between men and women, would anyone care about what your gender was? would they be the same? And in light of the things I've learned on this journey, I would say yes and no. Because it is still complex, yet it IS understandable.
The differences extend beyond the physical differences: hair style, clothes, tone of voice, manerisms, and yet they are connected. It extends beyond chemical makeup, and yet, it is connected to the chemical makeup.--and strangely, humans are very astute at detecting the chemical makeup even though that makeup is so subtle.
Part of the trouble of this research endeavor is the constraint of language in describing minute differences. This quest has primarily been one of discovering the right words to use and secondarily has been actually understanding the differences. One can easily point out comparisons, such as the color blue been socially seen as associated with males, and pink associated with females, but to put into words why that is, is a challenge.
I'm going to start by describing men and women by their perceptions of each other, however, both sides are contradicting.
Women see men as both lazy and hard working. They are aroused by hard working me, and yet assume that all men are lazy. These two contradictions place the male gender into two categories: those worthy of 'mating' and those not-worthy. --Mating isn't the best term for this, but it will have to suffice. Mating as I am using it can be sexual attraction, fathering children, coming to for protection, desiring his attention, desiring to please or impress him, and many other things.
Those non-worthy men obsessive over their hobbies and interests but present and share that obsession in excess to the annoyance of both men and women, while those worthy men keep their interests and hobbies secret except to fellow interest-lovers or when prompted. Curteous communcation skills make a worthy man, whereas discourteous communication makes a man fall into the not-worthy category--with one exception. Worthy men challenge the status-quo, they refuse to submit to blind obedience without purpose, and the key to this exception is what I deem Quiet Understanding.--worthy men make the appearance that they know some further information, which prompts them to disobey and be discourteous to the status quo. One can infer that worthy men incite change, they stand alone in order to force that change, they challenge the norm seemingly because they know better than the norm. --whether they actually know or not is debatable, because this Quiet understanding is afterall 'quiet'. To effectively pull this off, the man has to remain quiet up until the moment they are challenged to explain themselves. Their plans must be kept secret up to the moment when the tension has been ratcheted up and the situation has become a sort of do-or-die.
If the man brazenly barks his agenda all over town and cries the end of times or openly disobeys the powers that be to make a point, he becomes the unworthy man who is passionate about his hobbies and interests and won't shut up about them to the annoyance of both men and women everywhere.
To be a worthy man, you must have a mind of your own, an agenda and plan of action to obtain it, and you must be constantly working towards it in secret to those who might oppose it, but opening to those who encourage it and want it just as badly.
In the viking age, the worst insult a man could be given was to be accused of being like a woman. --The same is true for these days, though the definitions are construed... The worse insult for someone who professes to be of male gender is to accuse them of being unworthy. Unworthy men carry bias as being weak, unintelligent, awkward, cowardly, and lacking in life-purpose.--making jabs at a man on any of those fields will breach him to the core unless he is so far on the worthy side that his confidence isn't affected by them.
The contradiction for women is that men are both courageous and cowardly depending on their worthy or unworthy status.
Unlike women, Men see women as a collective of categories. They generalize women into one category and assume the biases of all categories.--or more simply put, they form a personal opinion on women that they use as a paradigm for all women even when it contradicts the subject (a woman) before them.
To men, women can be any combination of the following traits: the sum of beauty, curvy, long-haired, domestic, motherly, lover of animals, pacifist, friendly, intelligent, bitchy, demanding, demonic, rude, fake, selfish, self-serving, sexual, dominant, jealous, full of and interested in gossip, passionate, naive, and many more (a longer list is due, but may constrain my argument).
The varying opinions on what a woman is can be confusing for a man (and perhaps even women)! For this reason, men don't talk about women as often to their fellow male friends because the differences of definition confuse the conversation. It is rare for two men to find this shared definition, and by very virtue of what makes a man, if he is 'worthy' then he doesn't reveal such until he is confronted--and if he is unworthy, then his opinion is taken lightly because of his annoying ethos and few will join with him in discussion.
This explanation also justifies the common statment by men that "women are an enigma." Yet, women are able to understand other women because they compare their own beliefs about what is womanly, and they compare themselves against their own biases about what a woman is and feel negative emotions if they fail to meet their own personal definition--at the same time they shun women who don't meet that same definition. In a sense, women self-regulate what it means to be a woman, and as society evolves and changes, the definition will change as well.
---
I will continue part 2 at a later time. In part two, I will discuss the ramification I philosophize occurs when we cease to make distinctions between genders and allow people to choose their gender completely.
(personal note: not a spectrum, but various levels and fronts)
Gender and sexuality has been around for a long time. It has been studied for a long time and there is a diversity of opinions on the matter. I wanted to find the platoian Truth--the root of what it means to be Male or Female. My quest was prompted by what I thought was strange: if society advanced to the point that there were no differences between men and women, would anyone care about what your gender was? would they be the same? And in light of the things I've learned on this journey, I would say yes and no. Because it is still complex, yet it IS understandable.
The differences extend beyond the physical differences: hair style, clothes, tone of voice, manerisms, and yet they are connected. It extends beyond chemical makeup, and yet, it is connected to the chemical makeup.--and strangely, humans are very astute at detecting the chemical makeup even though that makeup is so subtle.
Part of the trouble of this research endeavor is the constraint of language in describing minute differences. This quest has primarily been one of discovering the right words to use and secondarily has been actually understanding the differences. One can easily point out comparisons, such as the color blue been socially seen as associated with males, and pink associated with females, but to put into words why that is, is a challenge.
I'm going to start by describing men and women by their perceptions of each other, however, both sides are contradicting.
Women see men as both lazy and hard working. They are aroused by hard working me, and yet assume that all men are lazy. These two contradictions place the male gender into two categories: those worthy of 'mating' and those not-worthy. --Mating isn't the best term for this, but it will have to suffice. Mating as I am using it can be sexual attraction, fathering children, coming to for protection, desiring his attention, desiring to please or impress him, and many other things.
Those non-worthy men obsessive over their hobbies and interests but present and share that obsession in excess to the annoyance of both men and women, while those worthy men keep their interests and hobbies secret except to fellow interest-lovers or when prompted. Curteous communcation skills make a worthy man, whereas discourteous communication makes a man fall into the not-worthy category--with one exception. Worthy men challenge the status-quo, they refuse to submit to blind obedience without purpose, and the key to this exception is what I deem Quiet Understanding.--worthy men make the appearance that they know some further information, which prompts them to disobey and be discourteous to the status quo. One can infer that worthy men incite change, they stand alone in order to force that change, they challenge the norm seemingly because they know better than the norm. --whether they actually know or not is debatable, because this Quiet understanding is afterall 'quiet'. To effectively pull this off, the man has to remain quiet up until the moment they are challenged to explain themselves. Their plans must be kept secret up to the moment when the tension has been ratcheted up and the situation has become a sort of do-or-die.
If the man brazenly barks his agenda all over town and cries the end of times or openly disobeys the powers that be to make a point, he becomes the unworthy man who is passionate about his hobbies and interests and won't shut up about them to the annoyance of both men and women everywhere.
To be a worthy man, you must have a mind of your own, an agenda and plan of action to obtain it, and you must be constantly working towards it in secret to those who might oppose it, but opening to those who encourage it and want it just as badly.
In the viking age, the worst insult a man could be given was to be accused of being like a woman. --The same is true for these days, though the definitions are construed... The worse insult for someone who professes to be of male gender is to accuse them of being unworthy. Unworthy men carry bias as being weak, unintelligent, awkward, cowardly, and lacking in life-purpose.--making jabs at a man on any of those fields will breach him to the core unless he is so far on the worthy side that his confidence isn't affected by them.
The contradiction for women is that men are both courageous and cowardly depending on their worthy or unworthy status.
Unlike women, Men see women as a collective of categories. They generalize women into one category and assume the biases of all categories.--or more simply put, they form a personal opinion on women that they use as a paradigm for all women even when it contradicts the subject (a woman) before them.
To men, women can be any combination of the following traits: the sum of beauty, curvy, long-haired, domestic, motherly, lover of animals, pacifist, friendly, intelligent, bitchy, demanding, demonic, rude, fake, selfish, self-serving, sexual, dominant, jealous, full of and interested in gossip, passionate, naive, and many more (a longer list is due, but may constrain my argument).
The varying opinions on what a woman is can be confusing for a man (and perhaps even women)! For this reason, men don't talk about women as often to their fellow male friends because the differences of definition confuse the conversation. It is rare for two men to find this shared definition, and by very virtue of what makes a man, if he is 'worthy' then he doesn't reveal such until he is confronted--and if he is unworthy, then his opinion is taken lightly because of his annoying ethos and few will join with him in discussion.
This explanation also justifies the common statment by men that "women are an enigma." Yet, women are able to understand other women because they compare their own beliefs about what is womanly, and they compare themselves against their own biases about what a woman is and feel negative emotions if they fail to meet their own personal definition--at the same time they shun women who don't meet that same definition. In a sense, women self-regulate what it means to be a woman, and as society evolves and changes, the definition will change as well.
---
I will continue part 2 at a later time. In part two, I will discuss the ramification I philosophize occurs when we cease to make distinctions between genders and allow people to choose their gender completely.
(personal note: not a spectrum, but various levels and fronts)
Monday, August 3, 2015
Feeling emotional today so...This!
Sudden shifts in barometric pressure always gets to me..
Let's play a game where I offend people for stating what I'm thinking right now and then a week later I'll apologize after I've lost a bunch of potential friends and the pressure has cleared...
I think life is incredibly fair and if you complain about it being unfair it's because you want it to be unfair...in your favor! If you follow the rules of life you get exactly what you earn, plain and simple. The unfair part is the way people treat each other. Some people get away with being disrespectful, rude, and complete assholes. In fact, being an asshole makes most people feel good about themselves--and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop another person from being an asshole.
Third, being a smart individual I can say this, and I'm going to say that the worst harm you can do to yourself is not physical harm or abusive relationship after abusive relationship--the worst thing you can do to hurt yourself is to become intelligent. If you can think critically about things, you will alienate yourself from everyone around you who doesn't also know how to think critically--and guess what, there are SOOO few of us, so it's about like alienating everyone. People are sheep and they want to stay sheep at all costs, and they get boiling angry when you try to make them think for themselves. The next worse thing you can do is to be confident. People will mock you and deter you from thinking critically, but if you're not confident who cares?--You'll be too unsure of yourself to care and others will convince you that your critical thinking is insanity. When you're confident, their mocking will hurt you more because you're no longer repeating verbatim what someone else came up with. If the person you repeat is wrong then it's not on you, it's on them, but if you're wrong, well... it hurts so much more.
Next, I'm convinced that this is something you're born with--to WANT to be nice and WANT to be fair and to WANT to have peace. Some people just want conflict. If is a hell of a lot easier to go through life seeking conflict than it is to desire peace. Why do people not understand that we don't need all of this conflict? We have plenty to share and yet people are so greedy that they horde everything in excess and they try to keep it from other people like the universe owes them. So my advice is don't fuck with peace if you question whether it's worth it, because it is not worth it. Those of us who desire it only do so because it is a part of who we are and we can't help but want it. Besides, there is only one way to obtain peace and I guarantee that you do not know how to get it, even if you think you do. The only way for true lasting peace (which is the only real peace) is through constant collaboration. No compromising, no avoiding, no accommodating, no aggressing--all of these will only bring a temporary peace--a ceasefire. And ceasefire is not real peace. And YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GET REAL PEACE. Every attempt you make to create peace only creates more conflict you fucking asshole. I'm not talking about inner peace. Inner peace is easy. Just love yourself enough not to give a damn about the world around you. We have too many people who think inner peace is the only way. Why do you think there are so many assholes? Because people settle into this line of thinking...that they can avoid conflict, or accomdate conflicts, or that they can compete with others until they have dominated them into submission and that somehow their WAR will bring about PEACE. You fucking assholes. That is not the way to true peace.
No, what we need are people who have found inner peace to seek outer peace and to do it the right way. I've personally lost complete faith that in my lifetime I'll ever see any kind of social change that brings about such peace. Hell, as far as I'm concerned I'm the only fucker that's working towards it and it's constant battle because I too would rather go the easy way and just seek inner peace. Sure, we'll make social advances in our institutions in my lifetime, but the people themselves will stay the same. You can't change a sheep's opinion unless you encourage them to be more sheep-like. I should know! I've been a sheep before. I used to think life was unfair. I used to be an asshole. I used to seek inner peace and la de frickin' da!--I know that that is what contributes to a world of shitheads because I was once one.
I don't want to hear people complain about life anymore, about not having a great job, or not having enough time to do what they love. It's bullshit. Use you inner peace like you always do and just say fuck-it to the world, then go do what you're going to do anyway. And I don' twant to hear people say that no one is like them and they have no friends. Try knowing all of the tricks of life, thinking critically, being confident, and realizing you have very little to complain about--only then will you realize that you have "no friends" and that no one is like you and that everyone is an asshole to you.
Be what you truly are, and if that's an asshole then cope with the fact that you're an asshole; but don't be an asshole if you don't think you're an asshole. If you think you are only a jerk because other people are jerks to you, then either you really are a jerk and need to settle with the fact that you were born in the dark and that your heart is cold and black, OR you need to realize that you're not an asshole and that nothing in the world will change the fact that you're not an asshole.
You are not a sheep though. No one is a sheep. You are just lazy. You don't WANT to think for yourself. You don't want to think about things critically because it means you'll have to take risks and make decisions for yourself rather than relying on the "advice" of others both live and dead. You're not a sheep. You may be an asshole, but even assholes need to think for themselves. I realize that there is nothing I can tempt you with to persuade you into not being a sheep. I realize that if I showed you how to have a million dollars sitting in the bank with your name on it within a year, that that would not entice you to think for yourself. I realize that me yelling at you, calling you an asshole, treating you like shit--that's not going to make you think for yourself--not even if I use your own sheepish logic to convince you that you're wrong in being a sheep or that you need to repent and make amends. I can't convince you that being who you really are is better than being a sheep either, because you'll convince yourself that you are being who you really are, and that who you are is a sheep. There is no argument that I can make that will convince you not to be a sheep. So fuck you for being an asshole, at least by me being an asshole I'll feel better about myself, you arrogant little pricks.
The truth is, if you think critically. If you are not a sheep. If you refuse to merely be a machine created by the environment that generated all of your robotic parts, but you instead choose to be a real, living, human being. Well...you'll realize that true peace, both inner and outter and most importantly: LONG LASTING PEACE is the only peace worth having. And you'll realize that everything else is a cheap imitation. You'll realize that everything else is second place and second rate and that it's not worth having because you can't have both--you can't have true peace if you're obsessed with the id or ego. You can't have true peace if it's only temporary. You can't have peace and will never have peace if you think it's going to just happen on day on no part of your own. And worse still, you make it so that the few of us who really are intelligent and confident and peaceful--WE can't have peace because of you. You are the weak link that is holding back humanity.
Lastly, I don't want to hear anyone else complain about what I just complained about. You know nothing, Jon Snow or whoever you are.--I complain because no one else complains in this way, and believe I am alone. If I had a soul-brother or soul-sister who thought the way that I do, I wouldn't need to complain. I would have renewed hope in humanity that there truly are people out there like me who are working towards real peace. I would have twice as large of a support system for the grief that all of these other assholes bring me. If you want to complain about this, please come to me brother, please come to me sister; but don't complain because that will only rub in the fact that I am wrong, and it will hurt to be wrong because I am confident that I'm not wrong.--Ah hell...do come to me and complain about this because I would rather be wrong and able to face that I'm wrong than be right and face that lonely path I foresee by being right.
Let's play a game where I offend people for stating what I'm thinking right now and then a week later I'll apologize after I've lost a bunch of potential friends and the pressure has cleared...
I think life is incredibly fair and if you complain about it being unfair it's because you want it to be unfair...in your favor! If you follow the rules of life you get exactly what you earn, plain and simple. The unfair part is the way people treat each other. Some people get away with being disrespectful, rude, and complete assholes. In fact, being an asshole makes most people feel good about themselves--and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop another person from being an asshole.
Third, being a smart individual I can say this, and I'm going to say that the worst harm you can do to yourself is not physical harm or abusive relationship after abusive relationship--the worst thing you can do to hurt yourself is to become intelligent. If you can think critically about things, you will alienate yourself from everyone around you who doesn't also know how to think critically--and guess what, there are SOOO few of us, so it's about like alienating everyone. People are sheep and they want to stay sheep at all costs, and they get boiling angry when you try to make them think for themselves. The next worse thing you can do is to be confident. People will mock you and deter you from thinking critically, but if you're not confident who cares?--You'll be too unsure of yourself to care and others will convince you that your critical thinking is insanity. When you're confident, their mocking will hurt you more because you're no longer repeating verbatim what someone else came up with. If the person you repeat is wrong then it's not on you, it's on them, but if you're wrong, well... it hurts so much more.
Next, I'm convinced that this is something you're born with--to WANT to be nice and WANT to be fair and to WANT to have peace. Some people just want conflict. If is a hell of a lot easier to go through life seeking conflict than it is to desire peace. Why do people not understand that we don't need all of this conflict? We have plenty to share and yet people are so greedy that they horde everything in excess and they try to keep it from other people like the universe owes them. So my advice is don't fuck with peace if you question whether it's worth it, because it is not worth it. Those of us who desire it only do so because it is a part of who we are and we can't help but want it. Besides, there is only one way to obtain peace and I guarantee that you do not know how to get it, even if you think you do. The only way for true lasting peace (which is the only real peace) is through constant collaboration. No compromising, no avoiding, no accommodating, no aggressing--all of these will only bring a temporary peace--a ceasefire. And ceasefire is not real peace. And YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GET REAL PEACE. Every attempt you make to create peace only creates more conflict you fucking asshole. I'm not talking about inner peace. Inner peace is easy. Just love yourself enough not to give a damn about the world around you. We have too many people who think inner peace is the only way. Why do you think there are so many assholes? Because people settle into this line of thinking...that they can avoid conflict, or accomdate conflicts, or that they can compete with others until they have dominated them into submission and that somehow their WAR will bring about PEACE. You fucking assholes. That is not the way to true peace.
No, what we need are people who have found inner peace to seek outer peace and to do it the right way. I've personally lost complete faith that in my lifetime I'll ever see any kind of social change that brings about such peace. Hell, as far as I'm concerned I'm the only fucker that's working towards it and it's constant battle because I too would rather go the easy way and just seek inner peace. Sure, we'll make social advances in our institutions in my lifetime, but the people themselves will stay the same. You can't change a sheep's opinion unless you encourage them to be more sheep-like. I should know! I've been a sheep before. I used to think life was unfair. I used to be an asshole. I used to seek inner peace and la de frickin' da!--I know that that is what contributes to a world of shitheads because I was once one.
I don't want to hear people complain about life anymore, about not having a great job, or not having enough time to do what they love. It's bullshit. Use you inner peace like you always do and just say fuck-it to the world, then go do what you're going to do anyway. And I don' twant to hear people say that no one is like them and they have no friends. Try knowing all of the tricks of life, thinking critically, being confident, and realizing you have very little to complain about--only then will you realize that you have "no friends" and that no one is like you and that everyone is an asshole to you.
Be what you truly are, and if that's an asshole then cope with the fact that you're an asshole; but don't be an asshole if you don't think you're an asshole. If you think you are only a jerk because other people are jerks to you, then either you really are a jerk and need to settle with the fact that you were born in the dark and that your heart is cold and black, OR you need to realize that you're not an asshole and that nothing in the world will change the fact that you're not an asshole.
You are not a sheep though. No one is a sheep. You are just lazy. You don't WANT to think for yourself. You don't want to think about things critically because it means you'll have to take risks and make decisions for yourself rather than relying on the "advice" of others both live and dead. You're not a sheep. You may be an asshole, but even assholes need to think for themselves. I realize that there is nothing I can tempt you with to persuade you into not being a sheep. I realize that if I showed you how to have a million dollars sitting in the bank with your name on it within a year, that that would not entice you to think for yourself. I realize that me yelling at you, calling you an asshole, treating you like shit--that's not going to make you think for yourself--not even if I use your own sheepish logic to convince you that you're wrong in being a sheep or that you need to repent and make amends. I can't convince you that being who you really are is better than being a sheep either, because you'll convince yourself that you are being who you really are, and that who you are is a sheep. There is no argument that I can make that will convince you not to be a sheep. So fuck you for being an asshole, at least by me being an asshole I'll feel better about myself, you arrogant little pricks.
The truth is, if you think critically. If you are not a sheep. If you refuse to merely be a machine created by the environment that generated all of your robotic parts, but you instead choose to be a real, living, human being. Well...you'll realize that true peace, both inner and outter and most importantly: LONG LASTING PEACE is the only peace worth having. And you'll realize that everything else is a cheap imitation. You'll realize that everything else is second place and second rate and that it's not worth having because you can't have both--you can't have true peace if you're obsessed with the id or ego. You can't have true peace if it's only temporary. You can't have peace and will never have peace if you think it's going to just happen on day on no part of your own. And worse still, you make it so that the few of us who really are intelligent and confident and peaceful--WE can't have peace because of you. You are the weak link that is holding back humanity.
Lastly, I don't want to hear anyone else complain about what I just complained about. You know nothing, Jon Snow or whoever you are.--I complain because no one else complains in this way, and believe I am alone. If I had a soul-brother or soul-sister who thought the way that I do, I wouldn't need to complain. I would have renewed hope in humanity that there truly are people out there like me who are working towards real peace. I would have twice as large of a support system for the grief that all of these other assholes bring me. If you want to complain about this, please come to me brother, please come to me sister; but don't complain because that will only rub in the fact that I am wrong, and it will hurt to be wrong because I am confident that I'm not wrong.--Ah hell...do come to me and complain about this because I would rather be wrong and able to face that I'm wrong than be right and face that lonely path I foresee by being right.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Capitalism Vs Socialism on a Grand Scale
Here we go...time to roll your eyes until they pop out of their sockets!
On a grand scale, Capitalism leads to giving away things to people who don't earn them, and Socialism leads to forcing people to earn everything they are given.
That's my bold thesis.
Here's how it works:
In a capitalistic world, entrepreneurs assume the risks. To counter risks, entrepreneurs band together--in a sense--and slowly get bigger and bigger to make sure that they are always profiting and that competition gets snuffed out. Competition is bad to a capitalist because it means part of their profits are lost and the risks are higher because there isn't a guarantee that they will sell the inventory they spent so much of their capital on. So in a capitalistic world, there is really only one megacorp because it is in their benefit to form a horizontal and a vertical monopoly.
The problem, as many social philosophers have pointed out, is that it becomes a form of monarchy. History has proven that, left unchecked, a capitalist will become the equivalent of a king, and in some centuries that's exactly what they became. Owning the "means of production" led them to hold a power position and they leveraged their power to become the supreme ruler.
In the modern world, to prevent entrepreneurs from becoming kings, the government has stepped in. After all, it is the business of the government to be the ruling body, not the wealthy and powerful.
The problem with this is, that instead of the government stopping megacorporations from getting any bigger, they cater to these corporations and not to the population at large. Yes, they instigate laws that prevent monopolies and they furiously tax megacorps, but--they furiously tax megacorps. The government gets their money from megacorps. They pay for things like infrastructure and the military using money from megacorps. A very small percentage of income tax money comes from personal income of the middle and lower class and even the lower-upper class. The rest of it comes from corporations--businesses.
Also, who has the power to influence the laws? Individuals? No. Corporations who can afford lobbyists.
So what kind of laws do you think they write? Do you think they write laws that seriously cripple their megacorp? OR, do you think they write laws that benefit them?
In America, the federal reserve hands out money to giant banks. Then, when they need a loan, they borrow money from those banks and pay those banks interest. I.E. Banks receive money for free, then they lend that money back to the government and collect interest on it. --Does that sound like it hurts these big banks, or helps them? Is there a way I could start a bank, receive the free money from the government, and then loan back to them and collect interest on it? No.
How about if I loan money to someone to buy a house, can I get insurance that when they can't pay that I'll get 80% of my loss back --paid for by taxpayers? because that's what FDIC does.
In short: Capitalism leads to giving handouts. Sometimes (usually) those handouts are given to people with means of production, and sometimes (very rarely) they are given to startups who are trying to compete but aren't doing a good job (*think government bailouts or grant money).
Now lets look at Socialism. (not communism, though that's a good example of socialism).
Socialism says that the means of production are owned by the people for the people, and not the individual. The land in a socialist society--owned by the people and not an individual. Depending on how socialized a society is, other things can be owned, such as "commerce" or the "financial market". Meaning, any transaction that is made using money, is owned by the society, so if you sell food you grew on the community land, then the community is entitled to a share of it. Or if you sell a patient, the patient is owned by the people, or the product produced off of that patient is owned by the people. You could extend socialism to say that ideas are owned by the people as well, but personally I think that's a stretch because no one can pry them out of you.
Because everything is owned by everyone, there is an urgency to make every member of a socialist society productive. Many socialist countries give you a test early on that determines your job function for the future, or at least assign you a job for the rest of your life. On a grand scale, they assign some people to labor and others to regulate/manage/police in order to ensure that everyone is earning their share.
Do they give out handouts? Yes. Do they give them out when they aren't needed? No. Because there is no assumption that any one person is assuming the full risks as there is in a Capitalistic society. Capitalists will reward you for taking risks, even if you take stupid risks. Socialists will prevent you from taking stupid risks because they evaluate the risk to society and not just to the individual. They'll also support you in your risk taking because they stand to benefit when you benefit, but you still have to earn it.
I don't know which is better: Socialism or Capitalism, but when I hear most people support capitalism they support it because they think it gives them control over what they earn, when in reality, other people are getting things they don't earn. And, Socialism isn't the giving out of things for free as people generally think it is.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Machine or Mystical?
I haven't written for a couple months.
Quitting my job in 2 weeks--going to take an adventurous leap into the unknown and hope tosurvive succeed!
Mark twain wrote an article about how man is just a machine--he is a product of his upbringing. He is the addition of two people, a village, the social system, and all these inputs... And those inputs produce specific results. Those results equate to this present moment where you happened to stumble into this blog.
I think there is some sense to this. But I don't want to believe it.
I just watched Frequencies (2014) It presents an argument that we all resonate a specific frequency, and that frequency makes us compatible with one another. It presents an argument that <spoiler alerttt!> certain words can control people--that our communication can control people. But that Music and other sounds --or rather, other frequencies--can counteract that. And that somehow there is a universal frequency that we are all attracted to that we all bow to and that if you understand that frequency you know everything. It too, argues that man is a machine. That he or she only reacts to the forces put into him and never acts on his own.
Both of these arguments completely stump the free-will theory. Both of them seem to point to destiny. Both of them point to complete order.
And the problem is... that if there is a destiny, if I don't control anythign I do because in the end things will play out the way that they are supposed to--well, I don't want ot live in that world!
I want to have control over my actions. I want to be able to change. I want to be able to will myself to be happy if I want to and to will myself to succeed. I want to earn it--not that I don't earn it, but that if I am just a reaction to the great reaction that happened in the begining--the big bang, then I don't like that! I don't like to feel as though I'm not free.
And unfortunately, there is an argument that: well, you are free...you can do whatever you want to do, but it's supposed to be,and even if it is supposed to be, and even if you are merely a reaction, is there anything wrong with that? You live a life.
I dunno... I just like to think there is an alternate universe out there for every decision. That there isn't just one thread. That I'm picking the thread that I want to follow and I'm weaving my own tapestry.
Quitting my job in 2 weeks--going to take an adventurous leap into the unknown and hope to
Mark twain wrote an article about how man is just a machine--he is a product of his upbringing. He is the addition of two people, a village, the social system, and all these inputs... And those inputs produce specific results. Those results equate to this present moment where you happened to stumble into this blog.
I think there is some sense to this. But I don't want to believe it.
I just watched Frequencies (2014) It presents an argument that we all resonate a specific frequency, and that frequency makes us compatible with one another. It presents an argument that <spoiler alerttt!> certain words can control people--that our communication can control people. But that Music and other sounds --or rather, other frequencies--can counteract that. And that somehow there is a universal frequency that we are all attracted to that we all bow to and that if you understand that frequency you know everything. It too, argues that man is a machine. That he or she only reacts to the forces put into him and never acts on his own.
Both of these arguments completely stump the free-will theory. Both of them seem to point to destiny. Both of them point to complete order.
And the problem is... that if there is a destiny, if I don't control anythign I do because in the end things will play out the way that they are supposed to--well, I don't want ot live in that world!
I want to have control over my actions. I want to be able to change. I want to be able to will myself to be happy if I want to and to will myself to succeed. I want to earn it--not that I don't earn it, but that if I am just a reaction to the great reaction that happened in the begining--the big bang, then I don't like that! I don't like to feel as though I'm not free.
And unfortunately, there is an argument that: well, you are free...you can do whatever you want to do, but it's supposed to be,and even if it is supposed to be, and even if you are merely a reaction, is there anything wrong with that? You live a life.
I dunno... I just like to think there is an alternate universe out there for every decision. That there isn't just one thread. That I'm picking the thread that I want to follow and I'm weaving my own tapestry.
Monday, February 2, 2015
A Space to Write
I need a space to write and I'm to the point that I Dont' care that anyone reads this. In fact, I welcome it, and hope that if you read this, that you'll give me some insight that maybe I'm overlooking... Or maybe I'll help bring you insight to your life. Who knows?
But I ahve a lot to think about right now. A lot to wrap my head around.
I just watched a documentary on a spiritual life coach/shaman/whatever you want to call him. I'll call him Paul but not tell you the last name. Or the film or anything of that nature.
Paul, I would consider, is an intellectual genius, much like a few of my favorites. His method is perhaps a little extreme, and it opens the world for a lot of problems, and some of his beliefs I don't think are 100% applicable, but the show is about one of his workshops and I think people go to workshops so that they can experience the extreme and from those extremes change their lives.
So there's the intro to what I want to explore here. . .
People only seem to change drastically for the better when tehy've experienced something drastic and extreme. --I don't want to believe in that 100% but perhaps it is true. The alternative that rolls through my mind is that people change in those extreme moments, but they also change in the day to day, little by little. However, I know from observation and experience that those "Changes" of the day to day tend to be cyclical. We change a little--just enough--and that pushes us into the next phase of the cycle and then that causes us to generate some correcting action which pushes us a little back and yet pushes us over the limit and then we somehow return to normal. --I've talked about cycles elsewhere...
I don't want to believe that we only change after drastic events, because then it would beg the argument that we should push ourselves to do extreme things at the first sign of trouble and that those extreme things cause us to learn and grow and make ultimate decisions about who we are and what we want to be. . . A sort of... I'm having a bad day, life seems to suck right now, so IT hink I'll go do something spontaneous and outrageous and force myself to do something that I Wouldn't normally do and then somehow --through that process--I force myself to learn and work my way out of it.
And sadly...I KNOW that that works. I KNOW that that is a real thing. take for instance the count of monte cristo...escaping the prison without the ropes rather htan with the ropes. Or take any professional athelete, and all of these life coaches, that I like ET, or even Alan Watts...all of the people I look up to as having obtained the formula for success;; Michael Jordan, or Mohamad Ali or outside of the world of sports, Eminem or T.I. or Justin Timberlake, or 50Cent, Katy Perry...they all took what they were doing--they took their passion, and they took a giant leap with it. They said: I'm not good enough right now, but I'm going to work at it and work at it and work at it and not stop working at it until I'm teh greatest. --To me, that isn't a "gradual change every day" it's a spontaneous life changing moment where they say to themselves : IT STARTS NOW. and then they go do it.
So.
I KNOW you can change this way. You can change by making the spontaneous decision. And I think you could even argue that that is the ONLY way. That ALL of the most successful people are only successfull because they took taht leap of faith into what was their passion and they gave themselves no way out--that's how extreme they took it. They gave themselves no Plan B. They just kept going forward with all that they had and said screw it to everything else.
But I wnat to believe that there is another path. That there is a path for the rest of people where they have plan Bs where they manage the risks to a T. They have plans for their plans and backups for those plans and all of those plans point to success. I want to believe that that is a real thing because it makes logical sense. it makes compelte sense that that is the way life is. That it actually requires both. That you have to take a spontaneous leap and that that leap is extreme enough for you to realize that you are scared and that you need to come up with a plan for your plan for your backup plan.
So I guess I want to be real with myself and...whoever reads this blog... and say that one of the reasons why I don't take a leap into these things that I'm passionate about: Film Making or Life Coaching or Homesteading, is that I worry about the consequences of such if I do it RIGHT NOW.
I fully intend to work on a feather film or series before I die. I always have and always will retain that goal. But, when things got hard for me, I took a break from it. I'm only now regaining my footing, regaining my focus and only now am I build up enough--after being destroyed--to face it again.
The life coaching... I want to make that a career. I'm sick of working for someone else, Im sick of being the smartest guy in the room who is ignored because he's a nobody. I'm sick of having to play politics in my workplace just to survive. to SURVIVE. I don't want to survive. That wasn't ever really my goal in life...survial was a side effect of everything else I Wanted to do. I wanted to LIVE and to live I guess you have to survive. But you also have to do so much more.
I want to do homesteading, and at one point a few months back I had a 5 year plan to get me going. OF whcih I'm only following through with about 1/4th of it. So at this rate, ya, in 20 years perhaps I'll be living that life. But this is bullshit. Why am I not doing it now?
I've also been made aware of a hidden desire of mine--not really hidden, but it's in so much conflict right now that I really don't know what to make of it, and it is that I want to get married some day and have 1 or 2 kids. I want to be a dad. I want to be a husband. but and here is where the doubt and all the barriers are that hold me back: I don't want to have a shitty marriage. I don't want to have kids get in the way of my relationship with my wife. I think a marriage relatiuonship--my wife--ought to be the very best relationship in my existence, and yet my other personal beliefs would indicate that perhaps a wife is a wife, and that I could have a best firned or colleague or mentor, or student that is my greatest relationship--and my personal beliefs don't want me to be held back or isolated into thinking that my marriage is going to be the best relationship ever---so I conflict. I fight againt the desire for this relationship--marriage- to be the best of the best, when it shouldn't have to be.
I joked with my roomate--and I'm actually stating to think the joke is my subconscious creeping out--that what I really need in my life is a saleswoman. Someone who can sell me, can sell my ideas, can pitch everything and redescribe everything and be a part of my life--because I lack those skillsets. I have too much ethics to persuade and manipulate people and because of that I draw the line extra close and it does take manipluation and persuasion to sell people things so I haven't learned those skillsets. So I need a girl who will sell everything I can produce, and then I can fuck her in the office and sell her everything I know about this etheral universe that I seem to understand that just clicks and makes sense--the things like that if you take that spontaneous jump you will succeed...
There are things that hold me back. True.
and yet, there is this fantasy, this vision that I cling to and I think it is the main thing that is holding me back.
It's a vision that goes liek this...
"wouldn't it be nice if..."
I had these spectacular relationships where I was respected and lookd up to and yet that I Was beat up just enough to give me a challenge and keep me growing and yet hta tit was done in the right way to make me not so stressed out about it and panic about getting side tracked...I hate it when people yell or scream at me when I don't know why they are upset with me--and I hate when they yell and scream at me and I do know why they are upset with me but I know that it was an accident or that I don't have the control to chagne it.
And yet... wouldn't it be nice if they DID yell at me more and they knew and could consciously recognize that they were just using me and abusing me--and the nice part would be if they cmae back to me after and apologized and said "thank you for letting me use you as a yelling board"--gee, that would make my life complete I'd probably cry a little inside knowing that someone was using me for something useful and that they recognized how valuable I was after.
Getting back on topic...
I want to believe that these little changes that we make every day acutally ammount to something more than the cycles that we keep going through, and yet I look back at my life and I see that I'm very cyclical. I go through good graceful periods where I'm floating on air, people are complimenting me and building me up and respect me and helpful to me and I'm in that golden position that I love to be in where I can say anything and be accepted or people come to me for advice and I don't have to bullshit with them to feed their ego--I Can just say it and they're receptive to it.
And then I get full of myself, or things start to get too good, or I miss a step here, don't get enough sleep there, and I'm cranky one day at the most inopportune moment and I Get passed up for great things because of it and the next thing I know I'm increadibly upset. I'm upset that I had thigns going for me and a simple mistake or because I push the limits too far, I'm somehow the lowest of low, a criminal. And I don't feel I deserve it. Sometimes it's merely a moment like this, right now, where I pause to really think about htings so I can make some greater discoveries and climb higher, and because I'm pausing to rethink, that is when I get passed up, I miss my train or whatever good fortune was supposed to happen to me.
And then I'm bitter and disgusted by everything and cynical and I get upset that I got passed up ro missed the thing. Then people start to avoid me and I push people out of my life because I'm annoyed by them and then I hit a socalled rock bottom where I realize I have no one or nothing.--that happened to me today actually. I realized I had a funny joke and no one to tell it to. No one who would respect it, not one who would laugh at it, no one who wouldnt think I'm crazy for laughing at it... and so I hit that point and then push myself to pull out of it and I do whatever needs to be done and get a few moments of golden floating on air where people finally respect me again. And this cycle happens over and over and over and I just live through life. I accept these bullshit things that happen to me when people pin things on me. I accept when people come to me for advice or they flatter me when I don't wnat to be flattered.
It's all really weird, but I never really seem to progress anywhere. I just get more hardened and solidified in where I'm at. Things become more refined and more defined. These arguments I've lived off of for so long--they don't get a chance to change because it's like I'm drawing a cirlce and I keep drawing over the line over and over and over and it gets more bold each pass I take till that's all you can see in the picture is this giant bold cirlce that really is insignificant in the whole painting.
All of this really trips me out.
.
.
.
...
.
.
........
.
.
.....
.
.
This entire blog has seemed to be building and working towards some central point--It would seem to me, looking over it as a whole--that I keep going around in a cirlce and get so so so so close to what is at the center of it all and the anticipation builds up as I get closer because I Think 'this is it--this is the time that my intellect finally reaches the center' but it never does. and I am left to wonder why that is.
In fact, perhaps it's not working towards the center at all. Perhaps it is exploding from teh center and I only think that I'm getting more centrifugal when really I'm exploding outward, going further and further from the center and that that is really what progress is--that the thing in the center is so old and so long past that it is irrelevant and that what matters is the present and that in the future the future is what matters. Don't worry about what's at the center, worry about what's at the outer edge--and since the universe is always expanding, don't worry about the actual outer edge, because you'll never reach it--worry about the present, where you are presently.
And...sadly...
that's what it always comes back it.
If the whole theme of this blog is gravity forcing us to fall towards some central point-- whether we are actually moving/falling, or whether we are in a state of equalibrium with the verticals and that we are still falling as much as we are being pushed up (but still falling mind you!). . . perhaps that's what hte central point is: that only this present moment matters. only the fact that I'm sitting here typing away at 100 words per minute on this keyeboard not carring about spelling not caring about who is going to read this later not worrying about anything.
It almost gives me a little bit of anxiety really because I don't know that this is an appropriate use of my time. I could be out, right as we speak, working towards getting laid, or making money to eat, or going out to eat, or whatever else--just to survive. OR I could be doing something enjoyable--but am I not enjoying this? am I not enjoying exploring myself through this writing? I am. . . and it is better than merely surviving. Fuck surviving. I am enjoying this.
But I always find myself returning to 'on task' because the real thrill of it all is that at some point if I keep doing this process I think that I'll make GRADUAL progress and reach a new territory. That's where the thrill is, that's where the excitement is,tthat's what so fun about writing on this blog--that I keep making that circular pass so close to the center that I think maybe this time I'll touch it--and the anticipation builds up and I convince myself that it will happen but it never does. and I don't even know if it ever will. I don't know enough about hte laws of this etheral world to know if it is actually possible for my path to touch to that central point.
What is it that is holding me back?
The thing that holds me back from film making for hte rest of my life is that I fear not making a living at it. I fear it. I'm afraid of it, I'm afraid I'll die of starvation and I know I can't work if I start to starve and so I won't REALLY be film making, I'll be starving. Those feelings of hunger will surpass those feelings of me actually doing something. but not just that. I'm afraid I'll be alone. I'm afraid that I'll have to sacrifice my friends and family and that I'll have to play politics--fuck I hate politics. That the politics will give me the opportunities to create films but at the expense of being fake, not connecting with people--really--because everyhting will be fake. I'll be feeding people's egos just so that I Can do my "passion" which--IS that my passion? No apparently not. Apparently film making is not my passion because it's not what makes me itch it's not what makes me tick.
There . I think I've settled that. Film making is a skill. it is a hobby. It is something fun I like to do, but it is not what I am passionate about, otherwise I'd put up with the politics to do it. I'd sell my house and invest everything I've got into this dream if that were the case. But it's not...
So what about life coaching? The thing that holds me back there is that I'm not assured of the consequences of my actions. I know that I could change people, I know that I could bring insights to the world, but to get started, of course, I'm scared of starving. I'm scared that I will not have enough clients or enough sales to earn a living. I'm scared too, that what I teach, one day, I'll decide isnt' correct. That I only thought it was. And I think that seperates me from a lot of other life coaches--they are confidence and self-assured that their view of life is the correct one. they are convinced that life is all about having sex and the chase and thrill, or they are convinced that life is about earning money, or they are convinced that life is about worshiping this being outside of yourself that may or may not be real and that is the beauty of it. They are CONVINCED--they appear so anyway--that they know exactly what life isa bout, and that gives them the power to sell what it is they are selling.
Me, what I have is original. Sure.
What I have is extreme. Yes.
What I have is well-thought out. Absolutely.
What I have I believe in. Almost entirely. But I doubt. I doubt myself. I doubt that I have it 100% and I'm scared to say : I only know 50% or 10% or whatever % I'm at right now. I think I only have 60% of the picture, if I'm being accurate. I have 60% of it. And I jhust don't know if that is enough to invest my life in it because I don't know enough--and sadly, these other guys--they know less than I do! But somehow they have something I don't have.
Ethics. That's another thing that stops me. And it's related to the 60% I do know. . . I could make up the other 40% and sell that, but it would be unethical. Plus, the 60% I do know, I'm only 90% sure of it. I'm leaving myself open to the possibility that I'm 10% completely off the mark, and I'm leaving myself 40% that I don't know and can't teach and yet that may or may not be the crucial 40%--that scares me.
10% I'm wrong
40% I don't know
60% I do know
90% I'm right.
I want the statistics to work more in my favor. That's all I want.
I just took a break and came back 45 sec later and realized that really, I'm wating around for a breakthrough moment that can propel me int that "it starts now" mode. --it's not realyl waiting. It's building. I'm building myself towards that.
And you know what. I guess maybe I am making some progress--I'm learning more and more. I'm getting more insights all hte time, some that give me more power to get closer to that moment and other that have me alter my course a little.
So the vision is:
I have a gorgeous wife. We live on a homestead. We have 2 kids. I write, blog, and offer workshops. I interact with people online and in person. I make money from my book/lifecoaching/skillsets--just enough to pay taxes, and buy things I'm too lazy to homestead for myself.
That's the vision. When the kids are old enough they can leave if they want and I'll have enough money to get their foot out the door, or they'll have enough in them to leave.
See, that's the funny thing about me and kids...
I want kids because there is a bond there--a relationship that only parents have with their kids--because they have extra years to establish that relationship with them that the rest of the world does not. . . and yet I wouldn't want to have that forever. I'd want them to grow up and move on and leave home so I could have an empty nest with my wife--we could have experienced the kids together and experienced the love of the relationship again as well.--I don't think that's weird, but I Think it's weird that I think that now where most people are like: I want kids so I can have them forever...
... Maybe this is a male thing>?
Honestly, I think the thing I'm most passionate about is searching for the perfect relationship.
If I find it, I worry that I won't be satisfied because there will no longer be a need to search for it. Or perhaps it won't be that way at all. From my experience though, the perfect relationship cannot be found, and I'm90% sure of this. The perfect relationship has to be built over time, step by step, little by little, small progress by small progress. 10% of me says that you can just stumble upon it. That you can find someone you just click with, and everything works out, but 90% of me says that you find someone who likes you a lot and you don't let them go. Or you find someone you like a lot and you don't let them go, no matter how shitty they turn out.
And that leads me: what is holding me back from having this ideal relationship that I speak of where I get married...
Well, the reason is that I haven't found anyone who likes me enough to not let me go. And I haven't found the motivation within myself to find someone I really like and will never let go. I've found people who I thought it would work with. I've found people who I know if I stuck with them that I could influence them to morph into exactly that perfect relationship--but I'm lazy. I'm SOOOO lazy. The moment that I see things are going wrong with the relationship I realize: "fuck. I could have anyone. Why am I messing with this chick>?" Sometimes I even doubt myself "fuck. I dont' know what I was thinking. I can't just pick someone and make a relationship out of them" --and yet, that's the ONLY way I can see it.
Either I pick someone and never let them go no matter what.
Or
They pick me and I come around to realizing that they ARE the perfect relationship for me.
So... I'm passionate about it. I want this. But the thing holding me back is I'm lazy. Fear or laziness are at the root of everything in your life why you aren't free or satisifed. Sometimes knowledge, but very rarely. Having knowledge I can say that...that knowledge is useless if you're scared or if you're lazy. and I have fear and laziness. just look at me!
All in all, I don't know what I'm really passionate about. I know I'm not passionate about making money, because I realize money is useless when it's being stored--a fortress full of gold is of no use to anyone anymore than a fortress full of stone or a field of bare sand is useful. There's no purpose in these things. The purpose is generating revenue and accumulating stuff, not the stuff itself. and I'm not interested in that.
What I am interested in is relationships. Forming new ones, maintaining old ones. Building on old ones if possible. improving them. Benefiting from them.
I'm interested in experiences. Experiencing new things, reexperiecning things I enjoy or am still wrapping my head around.
Life is tripping me out.
But I ahve a lot to think about right now. A lot to wrap my head around.
I just watched a documentary on a spiritual life coach/shaman/whatever you want to call him. I'll call him Paul but not tell you the last name. Or the film or anything of that nature.
Paul, I would consider, is an intellectual genius, much like a few of my favorites. His method is perhaps a little extreme, and it opens the world for a lot of problems, and some of his beliefs I don't think are 100% applicable, but the show is about one of his workshops and I think people go to workshops so that they can experience the extreme and from those extremes change their lives.
So there's the intro to what I want to explore here. . .
People only seem to change drastically for the better when tehy've experienced something drastic and extreme. --I don't want to believe in that 100% but perhaps it is true. The alternative that rolls through my mind is that people change in those extreme moments, but they also change in the day to day, little by little. However, I know from observation and experience that those "Changes" of the day to day tend to be cyclical. We change a little--just enough--and that pushes us into the next phase of the cycle and then that causes us to generate some correcting action which pushes us a little back and yet pushes us over the limit and then we somehow return to normal. --I've talked about cycles elsewhere...
I don't want to believe that we only change after drastic events, because then it would beg the argument that we should push ourselves to do extreme things at the first sign of trouble and that those extreme things cause us to learn and grow and make ultimate decisions about who we are and what we want to be. . . A sort of... I'm having a bad day, life seems to suck right now, so IT hink I'll go do something spontaneous and outrageous and force myself to do something that I Wouldn't normally do and then somehow --through that process--I force myself to learn and work my way out of it.
And sadly...I KNOW that that works. I KNOW that that is a real thing. take for instance the count of monte cristo...escaping the prison without the ropes rather htan with the ropes. Or take any professional athelete, and all of these life coaches, that I like ET, or even Alan Watts...all of the people I look up to as having obtained the formula for success;; Michael Jordan, or Mohamad Ali or outside of the world of sports, Eminem or T.I. or Justin Timberlake, or 50Cent, Katy Perry...they all took what they were doing--they took their passion, and they took a giant leap with it. They said: I'm not good enough right now, but I'm going to work at it and work at it and work at it and not stop working at it until I'm teh greatest. --To me, that isn't a "gradual change every day" it's a spontaneous life changing moment where they say to themselves : IT STARTS NOW. and then they go do it.
So.
I KNOW you can change this way. You can change by making the spontaneous decision. And I think you could even argue that that is the ONLY way. That ALL of the most successful people are only successfull because they took taht leap of faith into what was their passion and they gave themselves no way out--that's how extreme they took it. They gave themselves no Plan B. They just kept going forward with all that they had and said screw it to everything else.
But I wnat to believe that there is another path. That there is a path for the rest of people where they have plan Bs where they manage the risks to a T. They have plans for their plans and backups for those plans and all of those plans point to success. I want to believe that that is a real thing because it makes logical sense. it makes compelte sense that that is the way life is. That it actually requires both. That you have to take a spontaneous leap and that that leap is extreme enough for you to realize that you are scared and that you need to come up with a plan for your plan for your backup plan.
So I guess I want to be real with myself and...whoever reads this blog... and say that one of the reasons why I don't take a leap into these things that I'm passionate about: Film Making or Life Coaching or Homesteading, is that I worry about the consequences of such if I do it RIGHT NOW.
I fully intend to work on a feather film or series before I die. I always have and always will retain that goal. But, when things got hard for me, I took a break from it. I'm only now regaining my footing, regaining my focus and only now am I build up enough--after being destroyed--to face it again.
The life coaching... I want to make that a career. I'm sick of working for someone else, Im sick of being the smartest guy in the room who is ignored because he's a nobody. I'm sick of having to play politics in my workplace just to survive. to SURVIVE. I don't want to survive. That wasn't ever really my goal in life...survial was a side effect of everything else I Wanted to do. I wanted to LIVE and to live I guess you have to survive. But you also have to do so much more.
I want to do homesteading, and at one point a few months back I had a 5 year plan to get me going. OF whcih I'm only following through with about 1/4th of it. So at this rate, ya, in 20 years perhaps I'll be living that life. But this is bullshit. Why am I not doing it now?
I've also been made aware of a hidden desire of mine--not really hidden, but it's in so much conflict right now that I really don't know what to make of it, and it is that I want to get married some day and have 1 or 2 kids. I want to be a dad. I want to be a husband. but and here is where the doubt and all the barriers are that hold me back: I don't want to have a shitty marriage. I don't want to have kids get in the way of my relationship with my wife. I think a marriage relatiuonship--my wife--ought to be the very best relationship in my existence, and yet my other personal beliefs would indicate that perhaps a wife is a wife, and that I could have a best firned or colleague or mentor, or student that is my greatest relationship--and my personal beliefs don't want me to be held back or isolated into thinking that my marriage is going to be the best relationship ever---so I conflict. I fight againt the desire for this relationship--marriage- to be the best of the best, when it shouldn't have to be.
I joked with my roomate--and I'm actually stating to think the joke is my subconscious creeping out--that what I really need in my life is a saleswoman. Someone who can sell me, can sell my ideas, can pitch everything and redescribe everything and be a part of my life--because I lack those skillsets. I have too much ethics to persuade and manipulate people and because of that I draw the line extra close and it does take manipluation and persuasion to sell people things so I haven't learned those skillsets. So I need a girl who will sell everything I can produce, and then I can fuck her in the office and sell her everything I know about this etheral universe that I seem to understand that just clicks and makes sense--the things like that if you take that spontaneous jump you will succeed...
There are things that hold me back. True.
and yet, there is this fantasy, this vision that I cling to and I think it is the main thing that is holding me back.
It's a vision that goes liek this...
"wouldn't it be nice if..."
I had these spectacular relationships where I was respected and lookd up to and yet that I Was beat up just enough to give me a challenge and keep me growing and yet hta tit was done in the right way to make me not so stressed out about it and panic about getting side tracked...I hate it when people yell or scream at me when I don't know why they are upset with me--and I hate when they yell and scream at me and I do know why they are upset with me but I know that it was an accident or that I don't have the control to chagne it.
And yet... wouldn't it be nice if they DID yell at me more and they knew and could consciously recognize that they were just using me and abusing me--and the nice part would be if they cmae back to me after and apologized and said "thank you for letting me use you as a yelling board"--gee, that would make my life complete I'd probably cry a little inside knowing that someone was using me for something useful and that they recognized how valuable I was after.
Getting back on topic...
I want to believe that these little changes that we make every day acutally ammount to something more than the cycles that we keep going through, and yet I look back at my life and I see that I'm very cyclical. I go through good graceful periods where I'm floating on air, people are complimenting me and building me up and respect me and helpful to me and I'm in that golden position that I love to be in where I can say anything and be accepted or people come to me for advice and I don't have to bullshit with them to feed their ego--I Can just say it and they're receptive to it.
And then I get full of myself, or things start to get too good, or I miss a step here, don't get enough sleep there, and I'm cranky one day at the most inopportune moment and I Get passed up for great things because of it and the next thing I know I'm increadibly upset. I'm upset that I had thigns going for me and a simple mistake or because I push the limits too far, I'm somehow the lowest of low, a criminal. And I don't feel I deserve it. Sometimes it's merely a moment like this, right now, where I pause to really think about htings so I can make some greater discoveries and climb higher, and because I'm pausing to rethink, that is when I get passed up, I miss my train or whatever good fortune was supposed to happen to me.
And then I'm bitter and disgusted by everything and cynical and I get upset that I got passed up ro missed the thing. Then people start to avoid me and I push people out of my life because I'm annoyed by them and then I hit a socalled rock bottom where I realize I have no one or nothing.--that happened to me today actually. I realized I had a funny joke and no one to tell it to. No one who would respect it, not one who would laugh at it, no one who wouldnt think I'm crazy for laughing at it... and so I hit that point and then push myself to pull out of it and I do whatever needs to be done and get a few moments of golden floating on air where people finally respect me again. And this cycle happens over and over and over and I just live through life. I accept these bullshit things that happen to me when people pin things on me. I accept when people come to me for advice or they flatter me when I don't wnat to be flattered.
It's all really weird, but I never really seem to progress anywhere. I just get more hardened and solidified in where I'm at. Things become more refined and more defined. These arguments I've lived off of for so long--they don't get a chance to change because it's like I'm drawing a cirlce and I keep drawing over the line over and over and over and it gets more bold each pass I take till that's all you can see in the picture is this giant bold cirlce that really is insignificant in the whole painting.
All of this really trips me out.
.
.
.
...
.
.
........
.
.
.....
.
.
This entire blog has seemed to be building and working towards some central point--It would seem to me, looking over it as a whole--that I keep going around in a cirlce and get so so so so close to what is at the center of it all and the anticipation builds up as I get closer because I Think 'this is it--this is the time that my intellect finally reaches the center' but it never does. and I am left to wonder why that is.
In fact, perhaps it's not working towards the center at all. Perhaps it is exploding from teh center and I only think that I'm getting more centrifugal when really I'm exploding outward, going further and further from the center and that that is really what progress is--that the thing in the center is so old and so long past that it is irrelevant and that what matters is the present and that in the future the future is what matters. Don't worry about what's at the center, worry about what's at the outer edge--and since the universe is always expanding, don't worry about the actual outer edge, because you'll never reach it--worry about the present, where you are presently.
And...sadly...
that's what it always comes back it.
If the whole theme of this blog is gravity forcing us to fall towards some central point-- whether we are actually moving/falling, or whether we are in a state of equalibrium with the verticals and that we are still falling as much as we are being pushed up (but still falling mind you!). . . perhaps that's what hte central point is: that only this present moment matters. only the fact that I'm sitting here typing away at 100 words per minute on this keyeboard not carring about spelling not caring about who is going to read this later not worrying about anything.
It almost gives me a little bit of anxiety really because I don't know that this is an appropriate use of my time. I could be out, right as we speak, working towards getting laid, or making money to eat, or going out to eat, or whatever else--just to survive. OR I could be doing something enjoyable--but am I not enjoying this? am I not enjoying exploring myself through this writing? I am. . . and it is better than merely surviving. Fuck surviving. I am enjoying this.
But I always find myself returning to 'on task' because the real thrill of it all is that at some point if I keep doing this process I think that I'll make GRADUAL progress and reach a new territory. That's where the thrill is, that's where the excitement is,tthat's what so fun about writing on this blog--that I keep making that circular pass so close to the center that I think maybe this time I'll touch it--and the anticipation builds up and I convince myself that it will happen but it never does. and I don't even know if it ever will. I don't know enough about hte laws of this etheral world to know if it is actually possible for my path to touch to that central point.
What is it that is holding me back?
The thing that holds me back from film making for hte rest of my life is that I fear not making a living at it. I fear it. I'm afraid of it, I'm afraid I'll die of starvation and I know I can't work if I start to starve and so I won't REALLY be film making, I'll be starving. Those feelings of hunger will surpass those feelings of me actually doing something. but not just that. I'm afraid I'll be alone. I'm afraid that I'll have to sacrifice my friends and family and that I'll have to play politics--fuck I hate politics. That the politics will give me the opportunities to create films but at the expense of being fake, not connecting with people--really--because everyhting will be fake. I'll be feeding people's egos just so that I Can do my "passion" which--IS that my passion? No apparently not. Apparently film making is not my passion because it's not what makes me itch it's not what makes me tick.
There . I think I've settled that. Film making is a skill. it is a hobby. It is something fun I like to do, but it is not what I am passionate about, otherwise I'd put up with the politics to do it. I'd sell my house and invest everything I've got into this dream if that were the case. But it's not...
So what about life coaching? The thing that holds me back there is that I'm not assured of the consequences of my actions. I know that I could change people, I know that I could bring insights to the world, but to get started, of course, I'm scared of starving. I'm scared that I will not have enough clients or enough sales to earn a living. I'm scared too, that what I teach, one day, I'll decide isnt' correct. That I only thought it was. And I think that seperates me from a lot of other life coaches--they are confidence and self-assured that their view of life is the correct one. they are convinced that life is all about having sex and the chase and thrill, or they are convinced that life is about earning money, or they are convinced that life is about worshiping this being outside of yourself that may or may not be real and that is the beauty of it. They are CONVINCED--they appear so anyway--that they know exactly what life isa bout, and that gives them the power to sell what it is they are selling.
Me, what I have is original. Sure.
What I have is extreme. Yes.
What I have is well-thought out. Absolutely.
What I have I believe in. Almost entirely. But I doubt. I doubt myself. I doubt that I have it 100% and I'm scared to say : I only know 50% or 10% or whatever % I'm at right now. I think I only have 60% of the picture, if I'm being accurate. I have 60% of it. And I jhust don't know if that is enough to invest my life in it because I don't know enough--and sadly, these other guys--they know less than I do! But somehow they have something I don't have.
Ethics. That's another thing that stops me. And it's related to the 60% I do know. . . I could make up the other 40% and sell that, but it would be unethical. Plus, the 60% I do know, I'm only 90% sure of it. I'm leaving myself open to the possibility that I'm 10% completely off the mark, and I'm leaving myself 40% that I don't know and can't teach and yet that may or may not be the crucial 40%--that scares me.
10% I'm wrong
40% I don't know
60% I do know
90% I'm right.
I want the statistics to work more in my favor. That's all I want.
I just took a break and came back 45 sec later and realized that really, I'm wating around for a breakthrough moment that can propel me int that "it starts now" mode. --it's not realyl waiting. It's building. I'm building myself towards that.
And you know what. I guess maybe I am making some progress--I'm learning more and more. I'm getting more insights all hte time, some that give me more power to get closer to that moment and other that have me alter my course a little.
So the vision is:
I have a gorgeous wife. We live on a homestead. We have 2 kids. I write, blog, and offer workshops. I interact with people online and in person. I make money from my book/lifecoaching/skillsets--just enough to pay taxes, and buy things I'm too lazy to homestead for myself.
That's the vision. When the kids are old enough they can leave if they want and I'll have enough money to get their foot out the door, or they'll have enough in them to leave.
See, that's the funny thing about me and kids...
I want kids because there is a bond there--a relationship that only parents have with their kids--because they have extra years to establish that relationship with them that the rest of the world does not. . . and yet I wouldn't want to have that forever. I'd want them to grow up and move on and leave home so I could have an empty nest with my wife--we could have experienced the kids together and experienced the love of the relationship again as well.--I don't think that's weird, but I Think it's weird that I think that now where most people are like: I want kids so I can have them forever...
... Maybe this is a male thing>?
Honestly, I think the thing I'm most passionate about is searching for the perfect relationship.
If I find it, I worry that I won't be satisfied because there will no longer be a need to search for it. Or perhaps it won't be that way at all. From my experience though, the perfect relationship cannot be found, and I'm90% sure of this. The perfect relationship has to be built over time, step by step, little by little, small progress by small progress. 10% of me says that you can just stumble upon it. That you can find someone you just click with, and everything works out, but 90% of me says that you find someone who likes you a lot and you don't let them go. Or you find someone you like a lot and you don't let them go, no matter how shitty they turn out.
And that leads me: what is holding me back from having this ideal relationship that I speak of where I get married...
Well, the reason is that I haven't found anyone who likes me enough to not let me go. And I haven't found the motivation within myself to find someone I really like and will never let go. I've found people who I thought it would work with. I've found people who I know if I stuck with them that I could influence them to morph into exactly that perfect relationship--but I'm lazy. I'm SOOOO lazy. The moment that I see things are going wrong with the relationship I realize: "fuck. I could have anyone. Why am I messing with this chick>?" Sometimes I even doubt myself "fuck. I dont' know what I was thinking. I can't just pick someone and make a relationship out of them" --and yet, that's the ONLY way I can see it.
Either I pick someone and never let them go no matter what.
Or
They pick me and I come around to realizing that they ARE the perfect relationship for me.
So... I'm passionate about it. I want this. But the thing holding me back is I'm lazy. Fear or laziness are at the root of everything in your life why you aren't free or satisifed. Sometimes knowledge, but very rarely. Having knowledge I can say that...that knowledge is useless if you're scared or if you're lazy. and I have fear and laziness. just look at me!
All in all, I don't know what I'm really passionate about. I know I'm not passionate about making money, because I realize money is useless when it's being stored--a fortress full of gold is of no use to anyone anymore than a fortress full of stone or a field of bare sand is useful. There's no purpose in these things. The purpose is generating revenue and accumulating stuff, not the stuff itself. and I'm not interested in that.
What I am interested in is relationships. Forming new ones, maintaining old ones. Building on old ones if possible. improving them. Benefiting from them.
I'm interested in experiences. Experiencing new things, reexperiecning things I enjoy or am still wrapping my head around.
Life is tripping me out.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
What makes a Man?
I've never really had an interest in this topic until recently, upon reading a few interesting articles and watching some videos here and there on the subject. I posted one article, and my comment to that article on my other blog, 3blindbarren The article is by a guy whose pseudonym is Dr Nerdlove (a harp back to dr. strangelove I assume?)
Basically, I think that Dr Nerdlove did a good job of explaining why this is an interesting topic:
Men of previous generations (pre 1960s) were different than our definition of men now. Post 1960, men, as a whole, have become more effeminate and things that we once thought of as "manly" have been put under threat. Men are no longer the sole breadwinner, they are expected to be assertive and aggressive but not so assertive that they are offensive--this seems to remove dominance from the list of traits that make up a man. --read Nerdlove's article for a good recap of these things.
What Nerdlove's article does is narrow down the argument to two concepts, an either or statement: Men are different, but similar, from women (which I call the segregation argument), or men are equal to women in all ways except their sex--that gender is made up and all humans are humans (which I call the equality argument).
---Ok, I wrote the intro 3 paragraphs a few weeks ago but never finished/posted this article... [Sept 3]
I think I prescribe to the equality argument when it boils down to it. Men and women, these days, are or should be equal in every way to men: in a capitalist system and in a socialist system, men and women ought to be paid the same amount based on skill level. They should be required to work and earn a living for themselves, which...right now I believe the minimum requirement is somewhere around $16K/year. Men and women should be accepted into public offices and organizations based on skill. Men and women should do equal share of housework. Etc. etc.
--More... [Oct 6]
Culturally, I thought I knew what everyone thought about gender: what is a man and what is a woman? But when I thought about it more, I realized I only knew what people said in the moment and that there are a few discrepancies that people don't realize. Like: not all men are macho--a macho man is confident--confident men hold themselves a certain way, they "cool" and calm...but...macho men also have tempers--when they're mad they'll "growl" the way a dog growls to scare away enemies. No.... Not all men are like that. Look in the movies (Because movies are good reference points for stereotyped/not-real-but-not-unreal characters), there are several "Men" played by Brad Pitt or George Clooney, Matt Damon or Will Smith, who don't "growl" who aren't over-buff, who might be a little nerdy, who aren't 100% confident, so on and so forth.
So thinking about that, I realize there are two parts to this:
P1 "What Makes a Man?" --From the cultural perspective; or better put: what universal traits would everyone agree on make up a man?
&&
P2. "What Makes up a Man?" --From a universal truth perspective of how it OUGHT to be in an ideal world of peace equality happiness and so forth.
--I watched a speech by Emma Watson who talked about, I think, the P2 What makes up a man. (she professes to be a traditional feminist, if you're wondering)
And she sounds like she could be a prominent figurehead for the feminist movement into the future...
But I feel like someone needs to tell her (and everyone else) that before we can get from here to there, we need to start with P1--we need to figure out what people presently believe, and then when we find the common ground that everyone agrees on, we can then present an argument to them to get them to agree on what the P2 universal truth of what men OUGHT to be.
I spoke to a good friend about this topic briefly and something he said made me really REALLY dive into this.
He said: "A Man takes care of his own."
I've investigated this statement and think it's true: a man takes care of himself, his possessions, his reponsibilites, his family, etc etc.
That got me thinking. What makes a woman though? because don't women do the same and doesn't society do the same? --And I don't think so.
Soceity expects women to take care of themselves and their kids, sure, but women aren't all held up to the standard that the way men are. They aren't as pressured to go out and find a job--there aren't as many stigmas attached to women without jobs as there is with men without jobs--among other things.
[continue:1/1/2015]
I don't know what I have said above--I'm not even going to read it, I just want to post this article.
Society as of 1/1/2015 believes that Men are: "Bearded, Tough, Working a Hard Job, at times Cutthroat, Emotionally Distant, Domineering, Muscular, and Physically Attractive." If you don't fit that as a male, part of society will always consider you a boy.
However, in my experience, if you fit that, all the "boys" will hate you and all the "men" will want to get rid of you.
Society as of 1/1/205 believes that Women are: "Curvy-thin, Clad in Makeup, Working hard to look good, Always Cutthroat, Emotionally Sensitive, Dominant, Fit, and Physically Attractive" and if you don't fit that as a female then part of society will never consider you a real woman.
But all of this is preposterous, and superficial. These are all surface attributes that don't target the real deal.
Now, I don't agree with this 100%, but a better way for society to express their differences between men and women would be to make the following statement:
"Men take care of their own. Women are taken care of." --Because it highlights that really, all these superficial traits indicate that men are supposed to take care of everything--run the world, politics, conquest, take care of their body, take care of their possessions, etc. and that women are some form of possession--that they should be owned by a man, that they should be the best possession--become the most valuable gem that he keeps in his treasure chest.
Interestingly, it also reflects a deep-rooted truth about society: that they are solely focused on DragonLust--Gather up the riches of the world into your stronghold and defend it against everyone. Become the greatest so that you can add that title to your storeroom. Amass everything there is, wealth, beauty, knowledge, fame, respect, power, etc etc. And to what end?
Basically, I think that Dr Nerdlove did a good job of explaining why this is an interesting topic:
Men of previous generations (pre 1960s) were different than our definition of men now. Post 1960, men, as a whole, have become more effeminate and things that we once thought of as "manly" have been put under threat. Men are no longer the sole breadwinner, they are expected to be assertive and aggressive but not so assertive that they are offensive--this seems to remove dominance from the list of traits that make up a man. --read Nerdlove's article for a good recap of these things.
What Nerdlove's article does is narrow down the argument to two concepts, an either or statement: Men are different, but similar, from women (which I call the segregation argument), or men are equal to women in all ways except their sex--that gender is made up and all humans are humans (which I call the equality argument).
---Ok, I wrote the intro 3 paragraphs a few weeks ago but never finished/posted this article... [Sept 3]
I think I prescribe to the equality argument when it boils down to it. Men and women, these days, are or should be equal in every way to men: in a capitalist system and in a socialist system, men and women ought to be paid the same amount based on skill level. They should be required to work and earn a living for themselves, which...right now I believe the minimum requirement is somewhere around $16K/year. Men and women should be accepted into public offices and organizations based on skill. Men and women should do equal share of housework. Etc. etc.
--More... [Oct 6]
Culturally, I thought I knew what everyone thought about gender: what is a man and what is a woman? But when I thought about it more, I realized I only knew what people said in the moment and that there are a few discrepancies that people don't realize. Like: not all men are macho--a macho man is confident--confident men hold themselves a certain way, they "cool" and calm...but...macho men also have tempers--when they're mad they'll "growl" the way a dog growls to scare away enemies. No.... Not all men are like that. Look in the movies (Because movies are good reference points for stereotyped/not-real-but-not-unreal characters), there are several "Men" played by Brad Pitt or George Clooney, Matt Damon or Will Smith, who don't "growl" who aren't over-buff, who might be a little nerdy, who aren't 100% confident, so on and so forth.
So thinking about that, I realize there are two parts to this:
P1 "What Makes a Man?" --From the cultural perspective; or better put: what universal traits would everyone agree on make up a man?
&&
P2. "What Makes up a Man?" --From a universal truth perspective of how it OUGHT to be in an ideal world of peace equality happiness and so forth.
--I watched a speech by Emma Watson who talked about, I think, the P2 What makes up a man. (she professes to be a traditional feminist, if you're wondering)
And she sounds like she could be a prominent figurehead for the feminist movement into the future...
But I feel like someone needs to tell her (and everyone else) that before we can get from here to there, we need to start with P1--we need to figure out what people presently believe, and then when we find the common ground that everyone agrees on, we can then present an argument to them to get them to agree on what the P2 universal truth of what men OUGHT to be.
I spoke to a good friend about this topic briefly and something he said made me really REALLY dive into this.
He said: "A Man takes care of his own."
I've investigated this statement and think it's true: a man takes care of himself, his possessions, his reponsibilites, his family, etc etc.
That got me thinking. What makes a woman though? because don't women do the same and doesn't society do the same? --And I don't think so.
Soceity expects women to take care of themselves and their kids, sure, but women aren't all held up to the standard that the way men are. They aren't as pressured to go out and find a job--there aren't as many stigmas attached to women without jobs as there is with men without jobs--among other things.
[continue:1/1/2015]
I don't know what I have said above--I'm not even going to read it, I just want to post this article.
Society as of 1/1/2015 believes that Men are: "Bearded, Tough, Working a Hard Job, at times Cutthroat, Emotionally Distant, Domineering, Muscular, and Physically Attractive." If you don't fit that as a male, part of society will always consider you a boy.
However, in my experience, if you fit that, all the "boys" will hate you and all the "men" will want to get rid of you.
Society as of 1/1/205 believes that Women are: "Curvy-thin, Clad in Makeup, Working hard to look good, Always Cutthroat, Emotionally Sensitive, Dominant, Fit, and Physically Attractive" and if you don't fit that as a female then part of society will never consider you a real woman.
But all of this is preposterous, and superficial. These are all surface attributes that don't target the real deal.
Now, I don't agree with this 100%, but a better way for society to express their differences between men and women would be to make the following statement:
"Men take care of their own. Women are taken care of." --Because it highlights that really, all these superficial traits indicate that men are supposed to take care of everything--run the world, politics, conquest, take care of their body, take care of their possessions, etc. and that women are some form of possession--that they should be owned by a man, that they should be the best possession--become the most valuable gem that he keeps in his treasure chest.
Interestingly, it also reflects a deep-rooted truth about society: that they are solely focused on DragonLust--Gather up the riches of the world into your stronghold and defend it against everyone. Become the greatest so that you can add that title to your storeroom. Amass everything there is, wealth, beauty, knowledge, fame, respect, power, etc etc. And to what end?
A Perfect World
I just woke up from a weird dream/nap that I think was my mind solidifying a few concepts for me.
It's weird how our minds work while we sleep, compartmentalizing data and building connections to other experiences as emotions in an attempt to make sense of things and improve memory.
Well...
I think it has finally dawned on me that there is no way for our society to go from a where it is now to a perfect state. There isn't going to be a second coming, a christ-like savior isn't going to come, religious soldiers aren't going to kill every non-believer, and I can provide you logical reasons why not. No amount of believing in that kind of thing is going to make it happen. The only way for it to happen is to stop believing and start doing--beliefs, hopes and dreams never accomplished goals like planing, decision making, work, and taking action. But Religion isn't the answer.
Politics isn't either. In fact, religion is just another breed of politics. People believe in a candidate, they hope that their candidate will amass enough votes, that the population will believe in them enough and their cause that they can take office and then they have faith that their candidate has the moral gumption to do what they say and is intelligent enough to make good decisions and so on and so forth. Every election, in our democratic republic, is another revolution, it's another hopeful second coming, and each go around the candidates get stuck in either failing to be popular enough to amass the necessary votes even though they have brilliant ideas, or getting the votes but being so bogged down by their impossible promises to people and the red tape and their opposition that they can't make the necessary impact that they need to to further society. Politics isn't the answer either because it's too caught up in being politics.
Technology, as we've proven recently, isn't the answer either. We've accomplished various goals through technology but at specific costs that negate any advances we've made. America, one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, hasn't really improved the lives of it's citizens. Sure we can provide everyone with food, but we still have starving children here, most people are either malnutritioned or overweight. We have essentially built a society where we spend our time coming up with the cures to the things that plague us, except that the technology isn't free so we charge for it, and everyone who deals or sells a "cure" is essentially bartering their version of a cure for another version of a cure and no one really has the cure for anything, even the rich who you would think have the means to live a perfect life--yet they are so preoccupied with maintaining wealth that their wealth becomes a sickness or burden for them and no one has been able to cure that sickness as of yet (and in my opinion never will). [and no I'm not saying wealth is sickness, I'm saying that getting lost in the complicated realm of obtaining, maintaining, and dispersing wealth is a sickness. )
It's nice to have hopes that one day the world will wake up and we'll all be cured, that we can live in a golden age of peace where everyone is nice, caring and emotionally connected, where we don't have want of food, lack of water, shelter, clothing, that we can be free of unfair biases, that if we want something we have the complete--unhindered--ability to accomplish that thing.
But this dream I had seemed to spin the tapestry for me clearly:
If we want to live in a "perfect" world, one with all those things above: people are free to do whatever they want, they aren't hindered by others, where conflicts are easily resolved because we have all the tools to resolve them, there is no hunger, no want. Sure, in this world there will be conflict, there will be hardships like inclement weather and bad times, but people will pull together and make it through. People may be angry but they'll be emotionally mature enough to make amends for anything their anger does to others and resolve the conflicts they have with those who make them angry.
It IS possible. . .
We have all the knowledge we need to do it. We know the "science" of conflict, we know how to cure world hunger and resolve all of our water problems throughout the world. We have the means of curing 99% of the worlds diseases.
But what we don't have is people.
We don't have real people.
We don't have emotionally mature, physically mature, and mentally mature people to do it.
We would almost be better off if we took a few of our "best" people (not our smartest or strongest or bravest or whatever, but overall best--physically, mentally, emotionally) and left this world to start a new one.---but again, that wouldn't work because it would cost too much, too many people would stick their fingers in the pot and put their own spin on everything and add their own requirements to the point that it wouldn't work.
All of this is depressing, I know. But let me give you the hopeful side of things:
We can build a perfect world within ourselves. we can be happy, and at peace individually or among a very select group of individuals. All it takes is the know-how, desire, and the determination to see through to the end.
It's weird how our minds work while we sleep, compartmentalizing data and building connections to other experiences as emotions in an attempt to make sense of things and improve memory.
Well...
I think it has finally dawned on me that there is no way for our society to go from a where it is now to a perfect state. There isn't going to be a second coming, a christ-like savior isn't going to come, religious soldiers aren't going to kill every non-believer, and I can provide you logical reasons why not. No amount of believing in that kind of thing is going to make it happen. The only way for it to happen is to stop believing and start doing--beliefs, hopes and dreams never accomplished goals like planing, decision making, work, and taking action. But Religion isn't the answer.
Politics isn't either. In fact, religion is just another breed of politics. People believe in a candidate, they hope that their candidate will amass enough votes, that the population will believe in them enough and their cause that they can take office and then they have faith that their candidate has the moral gumption to do what they say and is intelligent enough to make good decisions and so on and so forth. Every election, in our democratic republic, is another revolution, it's another hopeful second coming, and each go around the candidates get stuck in either failing to be popular enough to amass the necessary votes even though they have brilliant ideas, or getting the votes but being so bogged down by their impossible promises to people and the red tape and their opposition that they can't make the necessary impact that they need to to further society. Politics isn't the answer either because it's too caught up in being politics.
Technology, as we've proven recently, isn't the answer either. We've accomplished various goals through technology but at specific costs that negate any advances we've made. America, one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, hasn't really improved the lives of it's citizens. Sure we can provide everyone with food, but we still have starving children here, most people are either malnutritioned or overweight. We have essentially built a society where we spend our time coming up with the cures to the things that plague us, except that the technology isn't free so we charge for it, and everyone who deals or sells a "cure" is essentially bartering their version of a cure for another version of a cure and no one really has the cure for anything, even the rich who you would think have the means to live a perfect life--yet they are so preoccupied with maintaining wealth that their wealth becomes a sickness or burden for them and no one has been able to cure that sickness as of yet (and in my opinion never will). [and no I'm not saying wealth is sickness, I'm saying that getting lost in the complicated realm of obtaining, maintaining, and dispersing wealth is a sickness. )
It's nice to have hopes that one day the world will wake up and we'll all be cured, that we can live in a golden age of peace where everyone is nice, caring and emotionally connected, where we don't have want of food, lack of water, shelter, clothing, that we can be free of unfair biases, that if we want something we have the complete--unhindered--ability to accomplish that thing.
But this dream I had seemed to spin the tapestry for me clearly:
If we want to live in a "perfect" world, one with all those things above: people are free to do whatever they want, they aren't hindered by others, where conflicts are easily resolved because we have all the tools to resolve them, there is no hunger, no want. Sure, in this world there will be conflict, there will be hardships like inclement weather and bad times, but people will pull together and make it through. People may be angry but they'll be emotionally mature enough to make amends for anything their anger does to others and resolve the conflicts they have with those who make them angry.
It IS possible. . .
We have all the knowledge we need to do it. We know the "science" of conflict, we know how to cure world hunger and resolve all of our water problems throughout the world. We have the means of curing 99% of the worlds diseases.
But what we don't have is people.
We don't have real people.
We don't have emotionally mature, physically mature, and mentally mature people to do it.
We would almost be better off if we took a few of our "best" people (not our smartest or strongest or bravest or whatever, but overall best--physically, mentally, emotionally) and left this world to start a new one.---but again, that wouldn't work because it would cost too much, too many people would stick their fingers in the pot and put their own spin on everything and add their own requirements to the point that it wouldn't work.
All of this is depressing, I know. But let me give you the hopeful side of things:
We can build a perfect world within ourselves. we can be happy, and at peace individually or among a very select group of individuals. All it takes is the know-how, desire, and the determination to see through to the end.
I do not prescribe
I think this should be mentioned before it's too late:
I am different. I am unique. I am my own person. I think for myself. I serve myself and have no masters. I am not a stock character. I am the protagonist of my story. I am comfortable with this, even though each day I HAVE to venture into new territory.
At times, being different bogs me down. Have you tried this before? It's not easy!
I am no on drugs, I do not take pills, I am not addicted to anything--at least not anything typical.
As such, I realize that at times no one can help me but myself.
At times, I realize that I may not have anyone in my life that can relate to me.
At times, I have no avenues for relieving stress because I haven't invented them.
When asked if I thought it was a good idea to go see a therapist, I realized: The only thing a therapist can do for me is be a sounding board. Their job is to help me think of a solution for myself, they can't tell me what to do and how to live, and if they did, it wouldn't be the life I want to live--it would be the life they want me to live.
...
But
...
Don't you see? --I can use anyone with a listening ear as a sounding board and save myself $75-125/hr! The only difference is that some people are shitty listening ears because they want to tell me what to do and how to live, or they want to be validated themselves for having similar experiences. . . That's fine. If it's free I can't complain about it too much, right? I can always turn it down.
But the benefit of one of these free people actually makes it worth more than a therapist: they can connect. A therapist can't exactly be your friend the way a real friend can be your friend. SO. No offense to you well-wishers, but don't recommend me a therapist, recommend me a friend or be a better one yourself.
I know I do not prescribe to society's pattern. I don't work to accumulate wealth and power. Nor do I attempt to be the most famous or the best at anything in particular. I work to be happy and keep on living. At times I'm the best, but I don't care about that--nor do I want to be the best because of the added stress that it brings.
I don't rely on others to make decisions for me, and I'm not comfortable with others making decisions for me without me knowing.
This is a good thing for the people around me, and for myself, and here's why:
1. I get to take all the risks and chances--I eat the leafy plants, if you will--and if they're poisonous, I'm the one who suffers but not the rest of the tribe. --so learn from my mistakes and follow my successes.
2. I present an alternative path through life that is well-thought out. I prove that there are other ways than the status quo. This is great for opening discussions and exploring things that most people overlook.
3. I can be real. I am what a whole human is. No alterations. No chemicals, not additives, nothing abnormal. I'm all natural. Anyone who experiences life will get what I get, plus whatever else they add. If you work out more than I do, you'll have bigger biceps but you won't be natural. If you take prescriptions, you'll be like me, except whatever side effects those prescriptions bring. If you take hard drugs, you'll be like me...but probably trip out a lot more.
Let me recap at a different angle:
I experience emotions. I thirst for knowledge. I crave intimacy. I get hungry and thirsty and experience pain.
But overall I'm positive. I'm happy. I'm intelligent. I'm ambitious. I'm handsome, even.
I am able to make decisions on my own and face the consequences of those decisions.
I'm basically you. Minus the things about you that I am not.
I don't really know what I'm getting at here but I suspect the summation is that because I am original and dont' prescribe to the status quo, I am what it truly means to be human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)