We enjoy thinking of ourselves as the center of a cosmic play. Even the slightest changes in our lives seems the difference between night and day, yet to others its hardly even a blip on the screen. And this extends all the silly little events that afflict us, the fights that seem so real, the moments of utter amazement. How often do we share these with a friend, gushing with conviction, only to be met with relative indifference? How many of us really do believe we are just "average" and that most of what we do probably never will make a difference? Is it even possible? For we do not live in a world of impartial wisdom, no, we are victims of our own meager scope of reality.
So is there any hope to be found in this? Any relevant lesson to be learned? If you believe so then many hardships likely awaits you. To pull a message from this tragic reality is quite the feat. In a real sense, we do not count for much, no matter how much we would like to. Even worse though, this isolation of consciousness ensures that we will never even gain that level of pertinence to those we really do care for and cherish. Can anything be salvaged from this? That is difficult to answer. Yet there is another class of individuals, the people that do not think any lesson can be grained from this travesty. These are the ones who understand the depth of this tragedy.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Existing
To look at the sky and not understand why things are the way they are,
to hear the cries of humanity only to remain helpless in preventing the pain behind them,
to thirst for invincibility and eternity yet to break down when the slightest harm befalls our loved ones,
to seek a place in history but never truly comprehend those who came before us,
to look to the unknown and see opportunity and to be terrified by it,
to plan for greatness and settle for the unbearable,
to idealize uniqueness while trying desperately to fit in,
to hate our parents and then become them,
to know that we will not live forever,
to be forced to face who we are,
to fail and learn and forget and fail again,
to laugh then cry then laugh some more,
to be human.
to hear the cries of humanity only to remain helpless in preventing the pain behind them,
to thirst for invincibility and eternity yet to break down when the slightest harm befalls our loved ones,
to seek a place in history but never truly comprehend those who came before us,
to look to the unknown and see opportunity and to be terrified by it,
to plan for greatness and settle for the unbearable,
to idealize uniqueness while trying desperately to fit in,
to hate our parents and then become them,
to know that we will not live forever,
to be forced to face who we are,
to fail and learn and forget and fail again,
to laugh then cry then laugh some more,
to be human.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Slow Bloggining
I will ironically break the "rules" of slow blogging and post about slow blogging. I think it's a great idea. Check out the "manifesto."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Some Unedited Thoughts on Self
I think in very practical terms we are not identifiable beings but rather experiential beings. Our identities emerge from the culmination of our current and remembered being but they do not shape it. This is not to say that identities have no use, only that they are descriptions of what in many ways has already passed.
Probably a good example of this viewing a photograph. A photograph is not a person yet within the picture we can find a portion of the person. In a more accurate way a person is a film, more then a sum of the individual pictures that make it up. As we watch the film our perception of what the film is constantly changes. If we were to imagine that at some point of the film we were being introduced to a final product then a couple of scenes later we would become bewildered by what was on screen.
In many way films do use this propensity of ours to continually solidify identities precisely to become effective pieces. As we grow attached to a picture it destroys that picture with a piece of evidence far outside our expectation for how that identity should work. Even when the film is done it is nearly impossible to determine what the film was. After all, are the characters the identities they began with or the ones they ended with? If certain parts of the film were enjoyable but others revolting then what identity can we assign the film?
I don't think these questions can be answered in the solidified way that most of us would like to characterize our lives. We come to this same problem when attempting to characterize ourselves. How can we give ourselves a single identity? Not only this, but how can we give ourselves an interim characterization, one based upon our current experiences? If we are to define ourselves with all that we are now then how are we to separate this 'me' from the 'me' we defined moments before? The only way to do so would be to make the identity as fluid as the actual experiences, but this corrodes the whole function of an identity.
The problem is, if this is true then how are we to even think of other people? What possible terms could contain the amount of information to draw an accurate picture of them? Even more troubling, in the event that we could gather all the information needed what could we ever do with it? A fluid definition is not a definition but rather just another experience to pile on top of the rest.
The only solution I see is to keep all this in mind when interacting with people. Instead of defining the self of another simply understand that they will manifest themselves in various ways as time goes on. Even when watching something fluid like a movie we are able to determine fairly easily if we enjoy it or not. Although it may be possible to find a way to enjoy every movie most of us do not have the time and energy to spend on such a momentous task. This allows us to form some sort of working relationship with people and to focus on the positive aspects of them as long as we decide to stay within their company.
Of course, even our relationship is not a solid matter. This to must constantly change so as to never trap others in identities we have built for them. Still if one can retain the commitment to view their fellow in the best light this will tend to fulfill itself and work to everyone's benefit.
One question on identities remains though. How are we to identify ourselves? I think the answer to that is that we should not. It seems to our advantage to realize that any identity we create in our image will never be ourselves. Instead we should remember that everything we experience is "ourselves". Whatever our identity is it can be stretched to encompass the entire extent of our being. If momentarily our world is looking dark one has to simply realize that they do not hold a "dark" mind but instead they experiencing a dark moment. Once one stops over-identifying certain states of consciousness he can allow these feelings to pass. By embracing the natural flow of life one can save themselves much of the stress gathered from fighting against it.
Probably a good example of this viewing a photograph. A photograph is not a person yet within the picture we can find a portion of the person. In a more accurate way a person is a film, more then a sum of the individual pictures that make it up. As we watch the film our perception of what the film is constantly changes. If we were to imagine that at some point of the film we were being introduced to a final product then a couple of scenes later we would become bewildered by what was on screen.
In many way films do use this propensity of ours to continually solidify identities precisely to become effective pieces. As we grow attached to a picture it destroys that picture with a piece of evidence far outside our expectation for how that identity should work. Even when the film is done it is nearly impossible to determine what the film was. After all, are the characters the identities they began with or the ones they ended with? If certain parts of the film were enjoyable but others revolting then what identity can we assign the film?
I don't think these questions can be answered in the solidified way that most of us would like to characterize our lives. We come to this same problem when attempting to characterize ourselves. How can we give ourselves a single identity? Not only this, but how can we give ourselves an interim characterization, one based upon our current experiences? If we are to define ourselves with all that we are now then how are we to separate this 'me' from the 'me' we defined moments before? The only way to do so would be to make the identity as fluid as the actual experiences, but this corrodes the whole function of an identity.
The problem is, if this is true then how are we to even think of other people? What possible terms could contain the amount of information to draw an accurate picture of them? Even more troubling, in the event that we could gather all the information needed what could we ever do with it? A fluid definition is not a definition but rather just another experience to pile on top of the rest.
The only solution I see is to keep all this in mind when interacting with people. Instead of defining the self of another simply understand that they will manifest themselves in various ways as time goes on. Even when watching something fluid like a movie we are able to determine fairly easily if we enjoy it or not. Although it may be possible to find a way to enjoy every movie most of us do not have the time and energy to spend on such a momentous task. This allows us to form some sort of working relationship with people and to focus on the positive aspects of them as long as we decide to stay within their company.
Of course, even our relationship is not a solid matter. This to must constantly change so as to never trap others in identities we have built for them. Still if one can retain the commitment to view their fellow in the best light this will tend to fulfill itself and work to everyone's benefit.
One question on identities remains though. How are we to identify ourselves? I think the answer to that is that we should not. It seems to our advantage to realize that any identity we create in our image will never be ourselves. Instead we should remember that everything we experience is "ourselves". Whatever our identity is it can be stretched to encompass the entire extent of our being. If momentarily our world is looking dark one has to simply realize that they do not hold a "dark" mind but instead they experiencing a dark moment. Once one stops over-identifying certain states of consciousness he can allow these feelings to pass. By embracing the natural flow of life one can save themselves much of the stress gathered from fighting against it.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Boredom
I find it odd and curious that part of the human condition is to feel boredom. We feel hunger pains to trigger us to refuel, we feel sexually driven to procreate; and we feel boredom for what?
Is it to motivate us to be productive?
It makes some daydream. When I am bored-stricken I daydream.
It makes some depressed. When I am bored-stricken I become depressed.
It seems to either motivate or deprive us of motivation. It is odd, is it not?
Not so odd. Humans are looked at by Marxists as innately positive beings. Hobbesists believe the opposite. I believe humans are both. We have potential for positive or negative outcomes.
boredom seems to do the same. As in all things in life, the trick is to try to focus boredom and funnel it into positive outlets.
Until next time: Alligator
Is it to motivate us to be productive?
It makes some daydream. When I am bored-stricken I daydream.
It makes some depressed. When I am bored-stricken I become depressed.
It seems to either motivate or deprive us of motivation. It is odd, is it not?
Not so odd. Humans are looked at by Marxists as innately positive beings. Hobbesists believe the opposite. I believe humans are both. We have potential for positive or negative outcomes.
boredom seems to do the same. As in all things in life, the trick is to try to focus boredom and funnel it into positive outlets.
Until next time: Alligator
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Stubbornness and Religion
I am finding myself more and more in the opinion that humans are stubborn irrational beings. It is but the finest stroke of luck that we have managed to make it this far, to have a society so relatively enlightened. (I say relatively since in many way we have lost a good deal of sense, and it may cost us the very life of our planet.) It seems that some sort of memetic description of ideas is probably what most likely exists. This is essentially a model that pits ideas in an evolutionary battle amongst each other, the most fit surviving. Unfortunately fitness can be gauged in many ways and some destructive ideas very good at propagating themselves are bound to survive. Take for example religion.
Now by all accounts religions, and the Judeo-Christian ones in particular, are based on some outlandishly outdated principles. Primity reeks through them and particularly out of their "holiest" of texts. Whether it goes by the name "Torah" or "Old testament" the Pentateuch is a disturbing archaic book. A cursory reading of it would lead to the obvious conclusion that its authorship could not be attributed so well to any group other then a iron age tribe from the Near East. The practices of this tribe are strikingly similar to all the other tribes around it and in its own time would not seemed very different from them. Really it could have been any of these ancient state religions that survived, but as it happened the winner of this battle was the ideas of the Yahwists.
What is more then a little surprising is that Yahweh, by all accounts, seems so unsuited for the role of today's generic "God". Yahweh is a war god, an honor god and on the rare occasion a forgiving god. He creates pacts with his people by slicing up animals, giving his subjects extraordinary tests and even having them slice off their own foreskins. Misbehaviour is treated with the utmost vengeance and entire nations are wiped out due to some growing tendencies. Ultimately it is usually the sweet smell of the burning of some animals flesh which convinces him that the worthiness of his people is intact, thus sparing their lives. Clearly, this is all very different from the wise, patient, benevolent, unintrusive, and omniscient god that most imagine today. Certainly there are similarities. He still demands your utmost devotion and will torture you after death to "cleanse" you if you do not follow this. He supports only one nation truly, whether this be the Christians, Muslims or Jews. By and large though, these two gods are really of separate species and maybe even separate genus.
Even this new version of god, filled with his hypocrisies and vagaries is hardly tenable. This is a god that our cool indifferent reality provides no evidence of. This could even be extended into a reverse watchmaker argument of sorts. When there is a single path in the desert to a spring, and beneath this path land mines are planted, one can only assume that a malevolent being or an indifferent psychopathic being placed them their. This is a far more accurate portrayal of our universe then a fine elegant creation like a watch. Believers convince themselves that all the horribleness of our world is humanities fault and we are lucky to deserve even the occasional kiss of goodwill from our creator. They will make claims like, "Look the entire building fell killing hundreds but a beam fell in a certain direction protecting a few children in the basement. We should thank god for this miracle." Statements like this reveal not only an impoverishment of the intellectual faculties but of the moral senses as well. Are we to believe that everyone in the building brought this terrible fate upon themselves, while god gracefully gave undeserved help to these few children? What of the helpless toddlers next door? Even the silly comic book superheros we invent have more compassion then this despicable deity.
So now I return to my original point on the stubborn irrationality of people. There really seems no greater testament of this to me then humanities absolute refusal to shed their iron age superstitions and to embrace an age of evidence and reason. Yet if so many of us seem to share this problem, then it must say something about all people, even those who do not share these beliefs. I see no other place to examine this phenomenon other then at the point in our minds in which ideas or confronted with conflicting ideas. The question is, why are some ideas chosen by the mind over others? A simplistic view that only took rationality into account would claim that the most logical ideas would win out. Yet it seems that the mind would probably be much more accurately explained with some sort of holistic system that viewed belief system as the culmination of different mental forces. To build a model like this would be quite complex and so for simplicity sake it seems that the memetic model is most adequate at explaining a process in which the slow influx of more "fit" ideas can multiply in the mind thus taking over control. However, this does seem a simplification and I think requires more thought on my part.
Now by all accounts religions, and the Judeo-Christian ones in particular, are based on some outlandishly outdated principles. Primity reeks through them and particularly out of their "holiest" of texts. Whether it goes by the name "Torah" or "Old testament" the Pentateuch is a disturbing archaic book. A cursory reading of it would lead to the obvious conclusion that its authorship could not be attributed so well to any group other then a iron age tribe from the Near East. The practices of this tribe are strikingly similar to all the other tribes around it and in its own time would not seemed very different from them. Really it could have been any of these ancient state religions that survived, but as it happened the winner of this battle was the ideas of the Yahwists.
What is more then a little surprising is that Yahweh, by all accounts, seems so unsuited for the role of today's generic "God". Yahweh is a war god, an honor god and on the rare occasion a forgiving god. He creates pacts with his people by slicing up animals, giving his subjects extraordinary tests and even having them slice off their own foreskins. Misbehaviour is treated with the utmost vengeance and entire nations are wiped out due to some growing tendencies. Ultimately it is usually the sweet smell of the burning of some animals flesh which convinces him that the worthiness of his people is intact, thus sparing their lives. Clearly, this is all very different from the wise, patient, benevolent, unintrusive, and omniscient god that most imagine today. Certainly there are similarities. He still demands your utmost devotion and will torture you after death to "cleanse" you if you do not follow this. He supports only one nation truly, whether this be the Christians, Muslims or Jews. By and large though, these two gods are really of separate species and maybe even separate genus.
Even this new version of god, filled with his hypocrisies and vagaries is hardly tenable. This is a god that our cool indifferent reality provides no evidence of. This could even be extended into a reverse watchmaker argument of sorts. When there is a single path in the desert to a spring, and beneath this path land mines are planted, one can only assume that a malevolent being or an indifferent psychopathic being placed them their. This is a far more accurate portrayal of our universe then a fine elegant creation like a watch. Believers convince themselves that all the horribleness of our world is humanities fault and we are lucky to deserve even the occasional kiss of goodwill from our creator. They will make claims like, "Look the entire building fell killing hundreds but a beam fell in a certain direction protecting a few children in the basement. We should thank god for this miracle." Statements like this reveal not only an impoverishment of the intellectual faculties but of the moral senses as well. Are we to believe that everyone in the building brought this terrible fate upon themselves, while god gracefully gave undeserved help to these few children? What of the helpless toddlers next door? Even the silly comic book superheros we invent have more compassion then this despicable deity.
So now I return to my original point on the stubborn irrationality of people. There really seems no greater testament of this to me then humanities absolute refusal to shed their iron age superstitions and to embrace an age of evidence and reason. Yet if so many of us seem to share this problem, then it must say something about all people, even those who do not share these beliefs. I see no other place to examine this phenomenon other then at the point in our minds in which ideas or confronted with conflicting ideas. The question is, why are some ideas chosen by the mind over others? A simplistic view that only took rationality into account would claim that the most logical ideas would win out. Yet it seems that the mind would probably be much more accurately explained with some sort of holistic system that viewed belief system as the culmination of different mental forces. To build a model like this would be quite complex and so for simplicity sake it seems that the memetic model is most adequate at explaining a process in which the slow influx of more "fit" ideas can multiply in the mind thus taking over control. However, this does seem a simplification and I think requires more thought on my part.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Self and Self Identity
Interesting. I am not a hundred percent sure I got that but I am sure I will get it with time.
I should start by stating that, for me, Self and Self Identity are not interchangeable but are quite connected.
There is the Self a being of its own within us all that changes with every second. It is affected by thought, emotional state, physical state (hunger/full, sexually satisfied/sexually frustrated, etc.,), natural inclinations and the degree in which we let it dictate or dictate over, and any other interaction beings have. This follows in many peoples footsteps, John Locke for one.
At this point, you should remember that the Self and Self Identity somewhat combine to a certain degree, since Self Identity is the understanding of each human of their Self or of humans Self.
Self Identity is a much trickier one. It is what we decide we are. We can let it be like H. G. Mead expresses as "The Looking Glass Self" where we are what others perceive us as; very similar to labeling theory (I happen to believe they are inseparable to a certain extent, there are minute differences, but it is off topic).
Or Self Identity can be as fluid as Freud's model of the ID, the Ego and the Superego battling for control of Self Identity on a daily basis.
Or Self Identity can be Trickery. Trickery is when we allow ourselves to believe that our job, religion, sexual preference or actions are our Self Identity. Now with a name like Trickery most of us would write it off the list, but maybe we should explore it for a moment or two more.
Not only does Trickery allow actual manifestations of the Self Identity come into being, but it also allows beings to have a guide or road map, if you will. You may say Trickery shouldn't be considered a model for Self Identity, but I believe it is a model. The Mind shapes being, I think we both agree on that, at least to a certain degree, and if one's mind decides to pretend he is a lawyer, than that is what he is, in his mind, which we know basically makes it true, at least to ourselves.
The Pros and Cons for the Trickery model are quite apparent.
Pros - it allows one to feel in control to a greater extent than other models, and it allows the individual to rely on one encompassing word to express, at least in general, who they are.
Cons- its a fabrication of the mind, its not scientifically an accurate description of one's Self, and it causes riffs between different parties.
Now, all models are true, they don't act in tandem, and for some, they don't act at all, but they all can. Self Identity is Self Perception. Self makes all humans equal. Self makes man and women equal, races equal, religious beings equal. It is the thing in all humanity. Self Identity in general is really just a facade. We can let Self Identity be whatever we'd like it to be, we should just never forget of the Self.
It is interesting to note that we let ourselves define ourselves by stereotypes; "I am a Lawyer." We both know how off stereotypes are. I don't know if you remember my liking for generalities and stereotypes, but at the end of the day I do concede they are a trifle misleading.
On with the day.
Alligator
I should start by stating that, for me, Self and Self Identity are not interchangeable but are quite connected.
There is the Self a being of its own within us all that changes with every second. It is affected by thought, emotional state, physical state (hunger/full, sexually satisfied/sexually frustrated, etc.,), natural inclinations and the degree in which we let it dictate or dictate over, and any other interaction beings have. This follows in many peoples footsteps, John Locke for one.
At this point, you should remember that the Self and Self Identity somewhat combine to a certain degree, since Self Identity is the understanding of each human of their Self or of humans Self.
Self Identity is a much trickier one. It is what we decide we are. We can let it be like H. G. Mead expresses as "The Looking Glass Self" where we are what others perceive us as; very similar to labeling theory (I happen to believe they are inseparable to a certain extent, there are minute differences, but it is off topic).
Or Self Identity can be as fluid as Freud's model of the ID, the Ego and the Superego battling for control of Self Identity on a daily basis.
Or Self Identity can be Trickery. Trickery is when we allow ourselves to believe that our job, religion, sexual preference or actions are our Self Identity. Now with a name like Trickery most of us would write it off the list, but maybe we should explore it for a moment or two more.
Not only does Trickery allow actual manifestations of the Self Identity come into being, but it also allows beings to have a guide or road map, if you will. You may say Trickery shouldn't be considered a model for Self Identity, but I believe it is a model. The Mind shapes being, I think we both agree on that, at least to a certain degree, and if one's mind decides to pretend he is a lawyer, than that is what he is, in his mind, which we know basically makes it true, at least to ourselves.
The Pros and Cons for the Trickery model are quite apparent.
Pros - it allows one to feel in control to a greater extent than other models, and it allows the individual to rely on one encompassing word to express, at least in general, who they are.
Cons- its a fabrication of the mind, its not scientifically an accurate description of one's Self, and it causes riffs between different parties.
Now, all models are true, they don't act in tandem, and for some, they don't act at all, but they all can. Self Identity is Self Perception. Self makes all humans equal. Self makes man and women equal, races equal, religious beings equal. It is the thing in all humanity. Self Identity in general is really just a facade. We can let Self Identity be whatever we'd like it to be, we should just never forget of the Self.
It is interesting to note that we let ourselves define ourselves by stereotypes; "I am a Lawyer." We both know how off stereotypes are. I don't know if you remember my liking for generalities and stereotypes, but at the end of the day I do concede they are a trifle misleading.
On with the day.
Alligator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)