Earlier last month I wrote a post called Dissent is Patriotic. Well, it's been getting some traffic lately, but it was really nothing more than a rambling rant, that didn't really do either the title or the subject justice.
In fact, I see now that I didn't even explain in that post exactly what that slogan means, because I took it for granted that it was self-evident.
Well, I'm sure the phrase 'dissent is patriotic' has probably been used by many people, but it is officially attributed to the historian Howard Zinn. That is where I got it from. But what does it mean? I'll tell you what I think it means.
To say that dissent is patriotic does not mean that all dissent is patriotic, or that dissent in and of itself is patriotic. What it does mean is that dissent, which generally means the opposition to official policy, can be patriotic in certain circumstances. And not only that, but the right to disagree with official policy, or the freedom to have a dissenting opinion without fear of suffering unreasonable punishment for disagreeing, is built into the very fabric of a free and democratic society.
For instance, if your country is founded on a specific set of rules and principles, and the people in charge institute actions and policies that violate, undermine, or subvert those rules and principles, dissent (meaning rebellion, opposition, protest, the failure to comply or support the people in charge and their polices), would in such circumstances be considered patriotic.
Patriotism simply means love and support of country. By country we mean not only the land and its people, but our collective society, our culture, our government, and the founding principles and laws of our nation.
But laws can and do change. Just because something is lawful, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, or just, or morally sound. For instance, slavery was once legal. At the time of legalized slavery, would you say it is patriotic to support the institution of slavery? If the founding principles of your country support slavery, than perhaps you could. However, if you believe that the institution of slavery violates what your country stands for, than supporting slavery would in fact be quite unpatriotic.
If you believe that all men and women are created equal, and that all human beings have a natural born right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and such a belief is written into the very laws and principles that your country was founded on, support for slavery, or anything else that opposes those principles, would be inimical to not only patriotism, but the ideals of truth, justice, and democracy.
So in such a circumstance those opposing the legalized institution of slavery, would be a good example of dissent being patriotic.
In a society based on democracy and the rule of law, patriotism does not mean uncritically supporting your country, right or wrong, no matter what. Country in this sense meaning government, your elected representatives, their official policies, and the military. Patriotism means supporting certain fundamental founding principles, values, and laws inherent to a democratic society, and holding your elected officials accountable to them.
If on the other hand a democratic nation is for instance taken over by a fascist tyrannical coup, that subverts democracy and the rule of law, it would not be patriotic to support such an administration's policies or military engagements.
So in conclusion, to reiterate my points: The phrase 'dissent is patriotic' basically means an opposition to tyranny and evil, corruption and injustice, and the abuse of power in high places, while actively seeking to change the people and policies responsible for subverting democracy and the rule of law.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Personal Cultivation Prayer
Found this gem in the archives buried beneath the rubble of a long rambling poorly written post. It may have been overlooked, but it's just as valid now as it was then. It's my daily mantra. My guiding philosophy. Feel free to borrow it if you like, or write your own, it may be helpful to you.
Wherever I am and whatever I do, wherever I work and wherever I live, of primary concern to me is focusing on my own personal cultivation, my daily routines of exercising my body and my mind, reading extensively, eating healthfully, lifting weights, doing calisthenics, running, walking, and getting back into yoga, and meditating twice a day, in the early morning upon waking and at night before going to sleep.
The personal cultivation of body and mind will be with me always, each and everyday of my life, from birth until death, from here unto eternity. Personal cultivation is my daily practice, my daily goal, a path that is both the journey and the destination, where each day I am arriving and departing, sitting still and moving on...a path that never ends.
Wherever I am and whatever I do, wherever I work and wherever I live, of primary concern to me is focusing on my own personal cultivation, my daily routines of exercising my body and my mind, reading extensively, eating healthfully, lifting weights, doing calisthenics, running, walking, and getting back into yoga, and meditating twice a day, in the early morning upon waking and at night before going to sleep.
The personal cultivation of body and mind will be with me always, each and everyday of my life, from birth until death, from here unto eternity. Personal cultivation is my daily practice, my daily goal, a path that is both the journey and the destination, where each day I am arriving and departing, sitting still and moving on...a path that never ends.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Search for Soul
In the past I've made passing comments here about being opposed to economic globalization, in favor of a more localized, environmentally sustainable, self-sufficient economy. But I'd like to revise that statement.
As Riane Eisler said, "Whether the globalization of markets has positive or negative effects largely depends on the rules and policies that govern it."
So it's not that globalization in itself is bad, what I'm opposed to are the current rules and policies governing globalization in its present form.
However, I still think that more than anything else those items that are most necessary for survival should be procured as locally as possible. That each country should have food sovereignty. Only importing luxury goods, or that which cannot be produced locally. It just doesn't make sense to import food from thousands of miles away, if it can be grown locally. If you live in Washington State, it shouldn't be cheaper to buy apples from New Zealand, then it is to buy apples grown in your own State. It doesn't make sense for India to export its rice, while at the same time having to import rice from another country for its own consumption. That's some screwy logic.
This is sort of a pet project of mine. I hate economics, at least what constitutes traditional economics, am more of a creative intuitive person, than a numbers and graphs person, but since economics appears to be intrinsically connected to and significantly responsible for shaping the state of our world as we know it, if you have any desire to understand the larger world you live in, and to possibly change it for the better, which I do, you must have some understanding of economics.
This is something I do independently. I do not have money for school, and have a strong aversion to debt (that's one thing I have going for me, while I may not have any money, at least I'm completely debt-free, woo hoo) but even if I did have the money, I would prefer to read independently anyway. This is why any job I take, any job I've had up until this point, has just been an inconvenient chore, a necessary evil done solely for a paycheck, with no passion or interest in the job whatsoever. The real passion is in learning, reading in my spare time, reading for knowledge and understanding.
That's pretty much where my head is at. So when people ask what do you do? I hesitate to mention what I do for a living, because whatever I have done for a living is not who I am. I have no ambition of advancing in a company. I don't give a damn about promotions, or making more money. If it's something that I don't much care for doing, I don't want to be spending too much time doing it, and least of all not getting too emotionally invested in it. I turned down a management position at this store I used to work at, preferring to remain in the lower paid position, because the promotion would have eaten up all my time and energy, with nothing left for reading outside of work...my true ambition.
My situation is comparable to that of an aspiring actor (except I'm not an actor) who has to take bullshit waiter or bar tending jobs to pay their bills, but that is not really what they want to do or who they consider themselves to be. I'm just someone who is trying to give themselves a quality education, independently in their own time, compliments of the public library system. Pardon me if I'm slow, and have no idea what I want to be when I grow up, despite the fact that I am past the age of 30. But I look really young, so maybe that works in my favor.
What I do know is that I do not want to be some cog in a machine. Some non-thinking unoriginal status seeking idiot with too much money and not enough brains, completely domesticated and dehumanized into some creativity starved soulless automaton, who just goes along to get along, but while losing themselves in the process. I'm not some kind of drone. I am not a robot. If you look at most of these jobs out there, they've got no soul. They are totally heartless, meaningless, dehumanizing and demeaning.
Anyway, economics doesn't much interest me, but making the world a better place does. And I've come to realize that much of the evils and ignorance in the world is connected to economics. That the world we live in is shaped by our economic systems. So it's something I need to learn. But I'm leaning more so to the alternative perspectives, alternatives to neo-liberal economics...the dominant viewpoint of capitalism.
Reading people like:
This is not a complete list, but a good reference point to start with.
Just finished reading two books about economics. On the Wealth of Nations by P.J. O'Rourke. Hated it. That guys an idiot. Followed by The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a More Caring Economics by Riane Eisler. Which was okay. Not great, but worth reading. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. She's a cool lady, though I think a much better speaker than writer. You can view some of her videos on YouTube. I recommend this one highlighting one of her key ideas from the book about creating a more caring economics.
Much of Eisler's philosophy is relevant to three of my recent posts speaking out against hierarchical authoritarian thinking, what she calls dominator thinking:
08 May 2011 - The Small-Mindedness of Hierarchical Thinking
09 May 2011 - Character is the True Measure of Success
11 May 2011 - The Mentality of Hierarchical Materialism
According to Eisler, the opposite of dominator systems, or rather what she advocates as transcending domination systems of thinking, is not submission, but is what she calls a partnership system, which is more peaceful and egalitarian, constructive not destructive, not exclusively feminine, but valuing both the feminine and the masculine.
Whereas current dominator systems only value masculinity, taken to its barbaric authoritarian extreme, while devaluing all things feminine as being expendable and subordinate. An extreme example would be religious fundamentalist theocracies and totalitarian dictatorships (which may be either religious or secular): such as fictionally portrayed in George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four and in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. A less extreme example, though still plenty extreme, is the world we currently live in. You know, the world where the agenda of war and military defense spending takes precedence over all else.
These are just some of the things I've been thinking about lately. To give my readers, my imaginary friends (or enemies), aka the invisible audience, a heads up to what has been going on in my head since my last post about my martini mishap. You know, just to let you know that I'm still alive, or maybe it's to remind myself that I am still alive, and why I'm still alive. If I'm going to live to be a thousand, got to have some worthy cause worth living for. Hedonism perhaps may be more pleasant than a life of hardship, toil and drudgery, but even hedonism get's old after awhile. With all the eating and drinking and making merry, you may end up like a gluttonous Jabba the hut.
And who wants to end up like that? That's hedonism taken to its extreme. You know without things like self-restraint, moderation, temperance. Things that make us better people, healthier people, stronger people, more disciplined people. Where it's not just about me, but we. Us. People. The planet. Where it's not just about having fun, but getting things done, intelligently. Thinking. Creating. Changing. Actualizing. The realization of our highest potentials.
I'm not reviewing Eisler's book, but just wanted to end with a really great excerpt (I typed it out all by hand, there was no copying and pasting here, so I hope you appreciate that) taken from Riane Eisler's The Real Wealth of Nations, about what's wrong with globalization:
As Riane Eisler said, "Whether the globalization of markets has positive or negative effects largely depends on the rules and policies that govern it."
So it's not that globalization in itself is bad, what I'm opposed to are the current rules and policies governing globalization in its present form.
However, I still think that more than anything else those items that are most necessary for survival should be procured as locally as possible. That each country should have food sovereignty. Only importing luxury goods, or that which cannot be produced locally. It just doesn't make sense to import food from thousands of miles away, if it can be grown locally. If you live in Washington State, it shouldn't be cheaper to buy apples from New Zealand, then it is to buy apples grown in your own State. It doesn't make sense for India to export its rice, while at the same time having to import rice from another country for its own consumption. That's some screwy logic.
This is sort of a pet project of mine. I hate economics, at least what constitutes traditional economics, am more of a creative intuitive person, than a numbers and graphs person, but since economics appears to be intrinsically connected to and significantly responsible for shaping the state of our world as we know it, if you have any desire to understand the larger world you live in, and to possibly change it for the better, which I do, you must have some understanding of economics.
This is something I do independently. I do not have money for school, and have a strong aversion to debt (that's one thing I have going for me, while I may not have any money, at least I'm completely debt-free, woo hoo) but even if I did have the money, I would prefer to read independently anyway. This is why any job I take, any job I've had up until this point, has just been an inconvenient chore, a necessary evil done solely for a paycheck, with no passion or interest in the job whatsoever. The real passion is in learning, reading in my spare time, reading for knowledge and understanding.
That's pretty much where my head is at. So when people ask what do you do? I hesitate to mention what I do for a living, because whatever I have done for a living is not who I am. I have no ambition of advancing in a company. I don't give a damn about promotions, or making more money. If it's something that I don't much care for doing, I don't want to be spending too much time doing it, and least of all not getting too emotionally invested in it. I turned down a management position at this store I used to work at, preferring to remain in the lower paid position, because the promotion would have eaten up all my time and energy, with nothing left for reading outside of work...my true ambition.
My situation is comparable to that of an aspiring actor (except I'm not an actor) who has to take bullshit waiter or bar tending jobs to pay their bills, but that is not really what they want to do or who they consider themselves to be. I'm just someone who is trying to give themselves a quality education, independently in their own time, compliments of the public library system. Pardon me if I'm slow, and have no idea what I want to be when I grow up, despite the fact that I am past the age of 30. But I look really young, so maybe that works in my favor.
What I do know is that I do not want to be some cog in a machine. Some non-thinking unoriginal status seeking idiot with too much money and not enough brains, completely domesticated and dehumanized into some creativity starved soulless automaton, who just goes along to get along, but while losing themselves in the process. I'm not some kind of drone. I am not a robot. If you look at most of these jobs out there, they've got no soul. They are totally heartless, meaningless, dehumanizing and demeaning.
Anyway, economics doesn't much interest me, but making the world a better place does. And I've come to realize that much of the evils and ignorance in the world is connected to economics. That the world we live in is shaped by our economic systems. So it's something I need to learn. But I'm leaning more so to the alternative perspectives, alternatives to neo-liberal economics...the dominant viewpoint of capitalism.
Reading people like:
- David Korten
- E. F. Schumacher
- Amartya Sen
- Thom Hartmann
- Herman Daly
- Paul Krugman
- Joseph Stiglitz
- Paul Hawken
- Vandana Shiva
- Riane Eisler
Just finished reading two books about economics. On the Wealth of Nations by P.J. O'Rourke. Hated it. That guys an idiot. Followed by The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a More Caring Economics by Riane Eisler. Which was okay. Not great, but worth reading. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. She's a cool lady, though I think a much better speaker than writer. You can view some of her videos on YouTube. I recommend this one highlighting one of her key ideas from the book about creating a more caring economics.
Much of Eisler's philosophy is relevant to three of my recent posts speaking out against hierarchical authoritarian thinking, what she calls dominator thinking:
08 May 2011 - The Small-Mindedness of Hierarchical Thinking
09 May 2011 - Character is the True Measure of Success
11 May 2011 - The Mentality of Hierarchical Materialism
According to Eisler, the opposite of dominator systems, or rather what she advocates as transcending domination systems of thinking, is not submission, but is what she calls a partnership system, which is more peaceful and egalitarian, constructive not destructive, not exclusively feminine, but valuing both the feminine and the masculine.
Whereas current dominator systems only value masculinity, taken to its barbaric authoritarian extreme, while devaluing all things feminine as being expendable and subordinate. An extreme example would be religious fundamentalist theocracies and totalitarian dictatorships (which may be either religious or secular): such as fictionally portrayed in George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four and in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. A less extreme example, though still plenty extreme, is the world we currently live in. You know, the world where the agenda of war and military defense spending takes precedence over all else.
These are just some of the things I've been thinking about lately. To give my readers, my imaginary friends (or enemies), aka the invisible audience, a heads up to what has been going on in my head since my last post about my martini mishap. You know, just to let you know that I'm still alive, or maybe it's to remind myself that I am still alive, and why I'm still alive. If I'm going to live to be a thousand, got to have some worthy cause worth living for. Hedonism perhaps may be more pleasant than a life of hardship, toil and drudgery, but even hedonism get's old after awhile. With all the eating and drinking and making merry, you may end up like a gluttonous Jabba the hut.
 |
| Reminds me of one my high school math teachers, whose just recently (as in this week) been convicted as a sex offender. |
And who wants to end up like that? That's hedonism taken to its extreme. You know without things like self-restraint, moderation, temperance. Things that make us better people, healthier people, stronger people, more disciplined people. Where it's not just about me, but we. Us. People. The planet. Where it's not just about having fun, but getting things done, intelligently. Thinking. Creating. Changing. Actualizing. The realization of our highest potentials.
I'm not reviewing Eisler's book, but just wanted to end with a really great excerpt (I typed it out all by hand, there was no copying and pasting here, so I hope you appreciate that) taken from Riane Eisler's The Real Wealth of Nations, about what's wrong with globalization:
Globalization, Domination, and Partnership
by Riane Eisler
Sometimes globalization is blamed for our world's ills. Actually, the globalization picture is more complex.
Certainly, as David Korten and other critics of globalization point out, trade agreements that require open borders and unregulated markets have often encouraged lower wages, exploitive working conditions, and the rapacious exploitation of nature. As Korten and others also point out, local communities can be more economically secure when most of their basic needs for goods, services, and employment are met locally. In contrast to absentee-owner corporations, local businesses may also be more likely to manage local resources more responsibly, since they depend on them for their own well-being and have to live with any environmental and health damage their activities cause.
But localization of economics is no cure-all. Local cultural traditions, as well as social and economic structures, can be extremely inequitable.
As Augusto Lopez-Claros, chief economist and director of the Global Competitiveness Network, points out about the failures of globalization, "Many of the problems laid at its door are more properly the result of unwise social policies, or the imposition of cultural habits and traditions which have nothing to do with the phenomenon of globalization itself." Lopez-Claros gives as an example that "how money from cash crops is spent by the men who earn it has far more to do with deeply entrenched social problems, such as alcoholism or sexism, than with globalization." He also notes that, in regions where there is still extreme male domination, globalization is helping women gain access to employment, and therefore access to the possibility of escaping violent or abusive situations. So once again, we see that economic practices and policies cannot be changed by focusing on economics alone. The shift to a more equitable and sustainable economic system requires attention to the larger culture.
Whether the globalization of markets has positive or negative effects largely depends on the rules and policies that govern it. It depends on whether or not there are safeguards for workers and consumers, protection of natural resources, and other caring national and international policies. For global trade to really raise living standards for all, as its proponents claim it will, requires changes in economic structures and rules. It requires international rules that prevent megacorporations from dominating not only economics but politics. It requires regulations that demand social and ecological responsibility and attention to long-term rather than just short-term corporate goals.
To again borrow the words of Lopez-Claros, "The economics of globalization must go hand in hand with social policy intervention which preserves and enhances the positive effects of globalization." and ultimately, whether it's locally or internationally, whether economics works only for a few or for the greater good of all, depends on whether the underlying social structures and cultural values orient to the domination or partnership system.
What it comes down to is this. Trade globalization is a fact of economic life in the postindustrial age. The issue is whether it is governed by an ethos of domination or of partnership.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Toxic Martini
I was sick for most of Saturday and Sunday. It was something I drank. Apparently pre-mixed gin martinis do not agree with me.
I should have known better. Hard liquor of any kind does not agree with me. I used to drink a lot of it too, back in my late teens and early twenties, when I somehow developed the mistaken notion that being a hard drinker was cool and was anything less than being a major turn off.
Note to self and others: Being a hard drinker is a major turn-off.
The novelty has worn off. Hard liquor is a poison. The idea that it is otherwise is mostly a result of propaganda, false advertising selling the myth of mixed drinks and sophistication. Its commercial imagery usually depicting extremely attractive, fashionable, wealthy and successful twenty somethings socializing amongst the upper echelons of society. Or else the rugged but wealthy baby boomer CEO and his entourage of cocktail sipping gold diggers, aspiring super models, and countesses of inherited wealth. Who said the CEO has to be male? No one. Just an example. It could go either way.
The point is the association of cocktails, the consumption of expensive top shelf liquor, with high society, wealth and sex appeal, is a recurrent theme in the marketing of these toxic cocktails.
It's all a lie. A myth. A marketing ploy. If you've fallen for it, you have been conned.
Yes there are plenty of wealthy, attractive, successful people who enjoy drinking top shelf cocktails, but there are also plenty that don't. And there are also plenty of poor, ugly, and unsuccessful people who drink cocktails too, maybe imagining while doing so that they are wealthier, prettier, and more successful than they actually are.
Whatever floats your boat. Nothing wrong with it so long as you recognize the myth for what it is: the selling of a fantasy.
So why did I buy this pre-mixed martini?
It was on sale. Normally $3.50, for an 8 ounce (200 ml) triple shot of gin martini, reduced to $1.19. I purchased it out of a mixture of curiosity, boredom, and frugality.
Bearing in mind that the truly frugal person who is pretty much broke, and close to living under a bridge, shouldn't be spending their scant amount of money on alcohol of any kind, no matter how good of a deal it is, I just couldn't pass up a $1.19 martini.
Anyway, I try it Friday night after midnight, had a just a few sips, and noticed how strong it was. Really strong. Way too strong. And also soon realized that I don't much care for gin anymore. But also being the sort who doesn't like to waste anything, I decided I would have to drink it, but that I would finish it Saturday. So I put it back in the refrigerator, and open up a beer instead. I only had one beer, and half of a martini, and woke up feeling extremely sick. Pain in my sinuses. Pain in my throat. Pain in my eyes. I spent most of the day in bed. Reading. But generally feeling horrible. I knew it had to be the martini, because the beer tasted fine, and I've never had a bad reaction to it before.
So I look at the bottle of pre-mixed martini, and see that it says "Contains sulfites". That's got to be the culprit. Either that or the combination of the martini and the beer, but I'm leaning more towards the sulfites. I've had bad reactions to sulfites before, which is the primary reason why I stopped drinking wine; and also due to the fact that every time I used to buy a bottle of wine, intending to only drink one glass a day with dinner, purely for its health benefits, rather than for intoxication, every time I'd end up polishing off the entire bottle. So I stopped drinking wine in favor of beer, simply because I find it easier to control my intake of beer. Two beers is pretty much my limit.
Of course, come Saturday night, just when I'm beginning to feel better again, I wondered if maybe the martini didn't make me sick after all. Maybe it was just a coincidence. So I stupidly decide to test my theory, and finish the martini, topped off by another beer. And low and behold, I was sick on Sunday.
What is the moral of the story? There are a few.
1. Don't drink things that make you sick. Even if you already spent money on it, it is better to throw it away, and write it off as being a bad investment, than to continue drinking something that makes you sick just to feel that you have gotten your money's worth. Yes I realize this is extremely stupid, but then again it was also an experiment, the fact that only a small amount of alcohol was consumed, at the time I didn't think it was a terrible risk.
2. Don't drink pre-mixed cocktails containing ingredients of uncertain origin. The fact that the type of gin used was not labeled, suggests it was likely a lower quality source.
3. Don't drink gin. Period. I used to like gin, but I don't think I do anymore. There is just something slightly nauseating about it.
4. Don't drink hard liquor. This is purely a personal choice, but I'm pretty much leaning in the direction of viewing all hard liquor, even if consumed in moderation, as being dangerous poison.
5. Stick to beer and wine. Even though I've had some problems with wine in the past, I still consider beers and wines to be a lesser evil than hard liquor.
6. And last but not least, you could also cut out all alcoholic beverages entirely. Something I'm not going to do just yet, (as I apparently haven't learned my lesson yet, probably take another ten years) but I will stick to my no more than two beers a day maximum. Or is that maxim?
In any case, take my advice, stay away from this:
It's worse than nasty. It's the worst drink I ever had in my life. Even worse than skid row malt liquor. And that's pretty undrinkable nasty too.
I should have known better. Hard liquor of any kind does not agree with me. I used to drink a lot of it too, back in my late teens and early twenties, when I somehow developed the mistaken notion that being a hard drinker was cool and was anything less than being a major turn off.
Note to self and others: Being a hard drinker is a major turn-off.
The novelty has worn off. Hard liquor is a poison. The idea that it is otherwise is mostly a result of propaganda, false advertising selling the myth of mixed drinks and sophistication. Its commercial imagery usually depicting extremely attractive, fashionable, wealthy and successful twenty somethings socializing amongst the upper echelons of society. Or else the rugged but wealthy baby boomer CEO and his entourage of cocktail sipping gold diggers, aspiring super models, and countesses of inherited wealth. Who said the CEO has to be male? No one. Just an example. It could go either way.
The point is the association of cocktails, the consumption of expensive top shelf liquor, with high society, wealth and sex appeal, is a recurrent theme in the marketing of these toxic cocktails.
It's all a lie. A myth. A marketing ploy. If you've fallen for it, you have been conned.
Yes there are plenty of wealthy, attractive, successful people who enjoy drinking top shelf cocktails, but there are also plenty that don't. And there are also plenty of poor, ugly, and unsuccessful people who drink cocktails too, maybe imagining while doing so that they are wealthier, prettier, and more successful than they actually are.
Whatever floats your boat. Nothing wrong with it so long as you recognize the myth for what it is: the selling of a fantasy.
So why did I buy this pre-mixed martini?
It was on sale. Normally $3.50, for an 8 ounce (200 ml) triple shot of gin martini, reduced to $1.19. I purchased it out of a mixture of curiosity, boredom, and frugality.
Bearing in mind that the truly frugal person who is pretty much broke, and close to living under a bridge, shouldn't be spending their scant amount of money on alcohol of any kind, no matter how good of a deal it is, I just couldn't pass up a $1.19 martini.
Anyway, I try it Friday night after midnight, had a just a few sips, and noticed how strong it was. Really strong. Way too strong. And also soon realized that I don't much care for gin anymore. But also being the sort who doesn't like to waste anything, I decided I would have to drink it, but that I would finish it Saturday. So I put it back in the refrigerator, and open up a beer instead. I only had one beer, and half of a martini, and woke up feeling extremely sick. Pain in my sinuses. Pain in my throat. Pain in my eyes. I spent most of the day in bed. Reading. But generally feeling horrible. I knew it had to be the martini, because the beer tasted fine, and I've never had a bad reaction to it before.
So I look at the bottle of pre-mixed martini, and see that it says "Contains sulfites". That's got to be the culprit. Either that or the combination of the martini and the beer, but I'm leaning more towards the sulfites. I've had bad reactions to sulfites before, which is the primary reason why I stopped drinking wine; and also due to the fact that every time I used to buy a bottle of wine, intending to only drink one glass a day with dinner, purely for its health benefits, rather than for intoxication, every time I'd end up polishing off the entire bottle. So I stopped drinking wine in favor of beer, simply because I find it easier to control my intake of beer. Two beers is pretty much my limit.
Of course, come Saturday night, just when I'm beginning to feel better again, I wondered if maybe the martini didn't make me sick after all. Maybe it was just a coincidence. So I stupidly decide to test my theory, and finish the martini, topped off by another beer. And low and behold, I was sick on Sunday.
What is the moral of the story? There are a few.
1. Don't drink things that make you sick. Even if you already spent money on it, it is better to throw it away, and write it off as being a bad investment, than to continue drinking something that makes you sick just to feel that you have gotten your money's worth. Yes I realize this is extremely stupid, but then again it was also an experiment, the fact that only a small amount of alcohol was consumed, at the time I didn't think it was a terrible risk.
2. Don't drink pre-mixed cocktails containing ingredients of uncertain origin. The fact that the type of gin used was not labeled, suggests it was likely a lower quality source.
3. Don't drink gin. Period. I used to like gin, but I don't think I do anymore. There is just something slightly nauseating about it.
4. Don't drink hard liquor. This is purely a personal choice, but I'm pretty much leaning in the direction of viewing all hard liquor, even if consumed in moderation, as being dangerous poison.
5. Stick to beer and wine. Even though I've had some problems with wine in the past, I still consider beers and wines to be a lesser evil than hard liquor.
6. And last but not least, you could also cut out all alcoholic beverages entirely. Something I'm not going to do just yet, (as I apparently haven't learned my lesson yet, probably take another ten years) but I will stick to my no more than two beers a day maximum. Or is that maxim?
In any case, take my advice, stay away from this:
It's worse than nasty. It's the worst drink I ever had in my life. Even worse than skid row malt liquor. And that's pretty undrinkable nasty too.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On the Insanity of War
I just recently finished reading The Shape of Things to Come, a sci-fi history of the future, by H.G Wells, author of The Time Machine and War of the Worlds.
Wells was a socialist, who considered world government to be the answer to our problems, and reading much like a history book this book is a fictionalized account foretelling the events leading up to Wells' idealized World Government.
Overall it was very boring and tedious reading, although some parts were certainly more interesting than others, which is what motivated me to finish reading it. I found the actual historical parts of the book, particularly the descriptions of the Great War (WWI), rather than the speculations concerning future events, to be its most insightful value.
I know I wasn't going to talk about war anymore, but just wanted to use this opportunity to share a great quote I saved from the book highlighting what I believe to be the insanity of war, which I will then use as a writing prompt:
"In obedience to the dictates of the blindest prejudices and the most fatuous loyalties they did their utmost to kill men against whom they had no conceivable grievance, and they were in their turn butchered gallantly, fighting to the last."
- H.G. Wells, On World War I.
There is nothing you could ever say to convince me that serving in the military in its present form is an admirable career choice.
I realize my point of view is not shared by most. In fact there are certain members of my family who would want me hung for treason for my anti-war remarks. Sadly this is a fact. This is the primary reason why I have severed ties with most of my extended family, and also because of other irreconcilable ideological conflicts of belief.
As far as I'm concerned the military and terrorism are two sides of the same coin. In many cases the military is little more than state sponsored terrorism; an evil organization on par with the Mafia, in terms of ethics and tactics employed, but bigger, smarter, better organized, more powerful, and much more ruthless.
You'll never meet an active duty serviceman critical of the military whose livelihood depends on it.
See my post: Random Insight - 5: Who Benefits?
The end of war and the end of terrorism would put a lot of soldiers out of work. Those who are in it for the long haul, as a career choice, have a vested interest in wanting wars and conflicts to continue, because if they didn't, what else would they do?
This is why in an enlightened society, the leaders, the prime decision makers and their advisors should never come out of the military, and those that do should only serve in a subordinate role. The military's voice should always carry less weight, otherwise when the military rules the show, becomes the lead voice, military engagements become the primary agenda, the top priority, and all else (education, healthcare, environment, scientific innovation, social justice, the eradication of poverty) takes a back seat. Just like what we have now. The military rules.
Ever wonder why the military gets the most funding? Why there's always money for war, even when the country itself is facing bankruptcy?
Priorities people. War is the top priority. That should be a red flag warning to you.
I'm not saying to dismantle it completely, but to downsize it, to reduce its funding and allocated power substantially. Of course, when the Pentagon is already the shadow ruler of the country, that's not going to happen. But that is the situation. The military is top priority number one, at the expense of far worthier causes. It's the king of the mountain. The highest on the totem pole. All you have to do is follow the money to see for yourself.
And soldiers are just expendable pawns, many of which enlist out of desperation because they can't get a decent job anywhere else, and are brainwashed to believe they are hero's fighting for a worthy cause, when in reality their primarily helping to line some already rich asshole's pockets who is nowhere near the conflict, and isn't effected by it or threatened by it in no other way but a monetary sense.
When you let the military set the agenda, call the shots, determine the priorities, to essentially run the government, you basically get a fascist mafia State operating under a hierarchical thug mentality.
That's the way it is now. These are extremely unenlightened times we are living in. The 21st Century Dark Ages. You think because of all the rapid advances in technology that we are moving forward, evolving as a species? Think again. We're not evolving as a society, we're devolving.
A government run by the military, is not an enlightened State, it's a warlord State.
Relevant Quotes:
Wells was a socialist, who considered world government to be the answer to our problems, and reading much like a history book this book is a fictionalized account foretelling the events leading up to Wells' idealized World Government.
Overall it was very boring and tedious reading, although some parts were certainly more interesting than others, which is what motivated me to finish reading it. I found the actual historical parts of the book, particularly the descriptions of the Great War (WWI), rather than the speculations concerning future events, to be its most insightful value.
I know I wasn't going to talk about war anymore, but just wanted to use this opportunity to share a great quote I saved from the book highlighting what I believe to be the insanity of war, which I will then use as a writing prompt:
"In obedience to the dictates of the blindest prejudices and the most fatuous loyalties they did their utmost to kill men against whom they had no conceivable grievance, and they were in their turn butchered gallantly, fighting to the last."
- H.G. Wells, On World War I.
There is nothing you could ever say to convince me that serving in the military in its present form is an admirable career choice.
I realize my point of view is not shared by most. In fact there are certain members of my family who would want me hung for treason for my anti-war remarks. Sadly this is a fact. This is the primary reason why I have severed ties with most of my extended family, and also because of other irreconcilable ideological conflicts of belief.
As far as I'm concerned the military and terrorism are two sides of the same coin. In many cases the military is little more than state sponsored terrorism; an evil organization on par with the Mafia, in terms of ethics and tactics employed, but bigger, smarter, better organized, more powerful, and much more ruthless.
You'll never meet an active duty serviceman critical of the military whose livelihood depends on it.
See my post: Random Insight - 5: Who Benefits?
The end of war and the end of terrorism would put a lot of soldiers out of work. Those who are in it for the long haul, as a career choice, have a vested interest in wanting wars and conflicts to continue, because if they didn't, what else would they do?
This is why in an enlightened society, the leaders, the prime decision makers and their advisors should never come out of the military, and those that do should only serve in a subordinate role. The military's voice should always carry less weight, otherwise when the military rules the show, becomes the lead voice, military engagements become the primary agenda, the top priority, and all else (education, healthcare, environment, scientific innovation, social justice, the eradication of poverty) takes a back seat. Just like what we have now. The military rules.
Ever wonder why the military gets the most funding? Why there's always money for war, even when the country itself is facing bankruptcy?
Priorities people. War is the top priority. That should be a red flag warning to you.
I'm not saying to dismantle it completely, but to downsize it, to reduce its funding and allocated power substantially. Of course, when the Pentagon is already the shadow ruler of the country, that's not going to happen. But that is the situation. The military is top priority number one, at the expense of far worthier causes. It's the king of the mountain. The highest on the totem pole. All you have to do is follow the money to see for yourself.
And soldiers are just expendable pawns, many of which enlist out of desperation because they can't get a decent job anywhere else, and are brainwashed to believe they are hero's fighting for a worthy cause, when in reality their primarily helping to line some already rich asshole's pockets who is nowhere near the conflict, and isn't effected by it or threatened by it in no other way but a monetary sense.
When you let the military set the agenda, call the shots, determine the priorities, to essentially run the government, you basically get a fascist mafia State operating under a hierarchical thug mentality.
That's the way it is now. These are extremely unenlightened times we are living in. The 21st Century Dark Ages. You think because of all the rapid advances in technology that we are moving forward, evolving as a species? Think again. We're not evolving as a society, we're devolving.
A government run by the military, is not an enlightened State, it's a warlord State.
Relevant Quotes:
- "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -Einstein
- "There's been a quantum leap technologically in our age, but unless there's another quantum leap in human relations, unless we learn to live in a new way towards one another, there will be a catastrophe." - Albert Einstein
- "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -Albert Einstein
- "Of the tyrant, spies and informers are the principal instruments. War is his favorite occupation, for the sake of engrossing the attention of the people, and making himself necessary to them as their leader." -- Aristotle (384-322 BC)
- "Only in time of fear is government thrown back to its primitive and sole function of self-defense and the many interests of which it is the guardian become subordinate to that." -- Jane Addams
- "Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved through understanding." -Albert Einstein
- "Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons." ~R. Buckminster Fuller
- "Education makes machines which act like men and produces men who act like machines." ~Erich Fromm
- It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Why Hope Matters
What is hope?
Hope is the optimistic expectation that things will change for the better.
That where there is ugliness, someday there will be beauty.
Hope is the optimistic expectation that things will change for the better.
That where there is ugliness, someday there will be beauty.
That where there is sickness, someday there will be health.
That where there is weakness, someday there will be strength.
That where there is poverty, someday there will be prosperity.
That where there is confusion, someday there will be clarity.
That where there is injustice, someday there will be justice.
That where there is injustice, someday there will be justice.
That where there is cruelty, someday there will be kindness.
That where there is animosity, someday there will be forgiveness.
That where there is hatred, someday there will be love.
That where there is fear, someday there will be courage.
That where there is sadness, someday there will be happiness.
That where things are wrong, someday they will be made right.
Hope is the momentum that keeps us moving positively forward into the future.
Hope is intimately tied to inspiration and creativity, meaning and purpose.
Hope is life affirming. Hope is positive. Hope is a life saver. Hope is redemption.
Hope is a beacon of light pointing to a gloriously happy and prosperous future.
Hope is a yearning in your heart for something better, and the belief that something better will come.
Not someday distant, but someday soon.
To feel hopeless is to see no end to the misery, just more of the same and no way out.
Despair is a dead end. To live in despair is to die a painfully slow mental and emotional death. To be hopeless, is to give up your joy, and your passion for living. To allow the unfavorable circumstances of your life to obscure your vision and to overwhelm you into seeing no way out of the ugly darkness of despair.
How do you keep your hope alive?
The best way to nurture your optimism is to nurture your health: fitness, cleanliness, sobriety, and peace of mind.
Do everything within your power to stay healthy and mentally alert, to be of sober mind, relaxed heart, and clear conscience. To not break the law. To not descend into the abyss of drugs and alcohol and criminal associations. To keep your head clear and your mind sharp and your body fit and clean.
That where there is fear, someday there will be courage.
That where there is sadness, someday there will be happiness.
That where things are wrong, someday they will be made right.
Hope is the momentum that keeps us moving positively forward into the future.
Hope is intimately tied to inspiration and creativity, meaning and purpose.
Hope is life affirming. Hope is positive. Hope is a life saver. Hope is redemption.
Hope is a beacon of light pointing to a gloriously happy and prosperous future.
Hope is a yearning in your heart for something better, and the belief that something better will come.
Not someday distant, but someday soon.
 |
| "Hope in a Prison of Despair" by Evelyn de Morgan |
What is the opposite of hope?
Without hope there lurks apathy and despair.
Hopelessness is the feeling of futility, that there is no possible solution to a problem, no chance of changing things for the better, that there is no escape and that all is lost. That your life has fallen into a deep hole. Where all you see is the bad, to the total exclusion of the good. The city is miserable. The housing is miserable. The jobs are miserable. The food is miserable. The weather is miserable. The scenery is miserable. The neighborhood is miserable. The people are miserable. The quality of your life is miserable.
Without hope there lurks apathy and despair.
Hopelessness is the feeling of futility, that there is no possible solution to a problem, no chance of changing things for the better, that there is no escape and that all is lost. That your life has fallen into a deep hole. Where all you see is the bad, to the total exclusion of the good. The city is miserable. The housing is miserable. The jobs are miserable. The food is miserable. The weather is miserable. The scenery is miserable. The neighborhood is miserable. The people are miserable. The quality of your life is miserable.
To feel hopeless is to see no end to the misery, just more of the same and no way out.
Despair is a dead end. To live in despair is to die a painfully slow mental and emotional death. To be hopeless, is to give up your joy, and your passion for living. To allow the unfavorable circumstances of your life to obscure your vision and to overwhelm you into seeing no way out of the ugly darkness of despair.
How do you keep your hope alive?
The best way to nurture your optimism is to nurture your health: fitness, cleanliness, sobriety, and peace of mind.
Do everything within your power to stay healthy and mentally alert, to be of sober mind, relaxed heart, and clear conscience. To not break the law. To not descend into the abyss of drugs and alcohol and criminal associations. To keep your head clear and your mind sharp and your body fit and clean.
Cleanliness does wonders to promote a more positive frame of mind.
Keep your hair and finger nails clean, manicured and short, and your clothing laundered, even if you must wash it out by hand. It's easier to keep a shorter hair style clean, and having only minimal body hair inhibits the growth of bacteria and foul odors.
Dirty sickly bodies weaken the mind and dampers the spirit.
So you must do everything in your power to stay strong. To stay healthy, clean, well groomed, sober, and physically fit. This is not the only thing, but it is extremely beneficial.
Clean body, clean clothing, clean mind, plenty of exercise, and healthy food, free of all intoxicants: drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and sugary, salty, fatty toxic processed foods with minimal nutrition. Those things are the destroyers of health, and the destroyers of health are the destroyers of hope.
An interesting piece of trivia concerning hope:
Hope is one of the Seven Virtues of Catholicism. I'm not a Catholic or a Christian or even religious, but you can sign me up for these. I give these virtues my complete endorsement.
1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Temperance (Restraint)
4. Courage (Fortitude)
5. Faith
6. Hope
7. Love (Charity)
Dirty sickly bodies weaken the mind and dampers the spirit.
So you must do everything in your power to stay strong. To stay healthy, clean, well groomed, sober, and physically fit. This is not the only thing, but it is extremely beneficial.
Clean body, clean clothing, clean mind, plenty of exercise, and healthy food, free of all intoxicants: drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and sugary, salty, fatty toxic processed foods with minimal nutrition. Those things are the destroyers of health, and the destroyers of health are the destroyers of hope.
An interesting piece of trivia concerning hope:
Hope is one of the Seven Virtues of Catholicism. I'm not a Catholic or a Christian or even religious, but you can sign me up for these. I give these virtues my complete endorsement.
1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Temperance (Restraint)
4. Courage (Fortitude)
5. Faith
6. Hope
7. Love (Charity)
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Mentality of Hierarchical Materialism
Note: This post is a continuation from the previous two.
It occurred to me that the whole idea that the sum total of a person's worth can be defined by their resume, stems not only from hierarchical and authoritarian thinking, but also is an entirely materialistic point of view.
The materialistic (atheistic and anti-spiritual) perspective is one that only values or counts that which can be objectively measured. Numbers. Statistics. Titles. Ranks. Grades. Resumes. Income. Socio-economic class.
Under such a point of view anything that cannot be objectively measured is either completely dismissed or significantly devalued. That everything that you are can be summed up on a piece of paper. That your resume and your net worth is what most defines your value as a human being.
Therefore such things as being a good person (character, ethics, altruism), and such things as happiness and love, meaning and purpose, are valued less than the size of your bank account, where you went to school, and your job title.
And according to such logic, the poor and less educated person who is happy, ethical, and altruistic, is valued less than a millionaire with a Phd from an Ivy League school, who may not be very ethical, altruistic, or even happy.
Only a materialist would think this way.
For the spiritually impoverished materialist who discounts anything subjective as being insignificant, the only aspiration that remains is material achievement. Achieving high status and material success. To be top dog. King of the mountain. Not to help others, but to be higher than others. To go as high as you can go, so that you can gloat in your success and look down at all the losers below.
YEAH. BIG MAN. TOP DOG. Lawyer. Billionaire. CEO. PhD. The grand pecking order of snobbery.
How sad. How smallminded. How pathetic actually, those who are limited by such hierarchical materialistic thinking. What a petty mind that looks upon people in such a way, that ranks them as superior or inferior based solely on resume and appearance alone. Such thinking is along the lines of dog eat dog. Top dog. Alpha dog. Beta dog. Winners and losers. That to win the game you must amass the most money and the most status. If you don't do that, then you are a loser irrespective of anything else.
But you know what? The alpha dog is still just a dog. More like a domesticated circus animal jumping through hoops, begging for treats, seeking praise from its masters.
Many that are locked into this hierarchical mentality, of looking down upon others who have achieved less, are actually deeply insecure people, who use achievements as compensation for their own deep seated feelings of inferiority.
Hierarchical elitism, the mentality of dog eat dog, aspiring to be top dog, while looking down upon others below, is a type of superiority complex masking feelings of insecurity and inferiority. Only an inferior person is fixated on rank, requires lots of titles and pats on the back, and needs to look down on others in order to feel better about themselves. To such people their entire confidence, identity, and self worth depends entirely on their material achievements, on how much money and status they have. They are truly enslaved people, as without such things they would feel utterly lost and broken.
As I said before a truly superior person does not gloat or brag. They do not think less of someone for their lack of ambition or achievement. A truly superior person has transcended the mentality of dogs, of being an alpha dog or a beta dog. And is truly free. Is truly their own master.
By contrast hierarchical materialism is a prison for the mind, because it traps people in a perpetual rat race of dog eat dog competition, where the epitome of success is measured solely by money and status, and the only things valued in life are what can be objectively quantified.
The reason why such thinking is flawed is because those subjective qualites DO matter. I would even argue that it is these subjective qualities that really make the person, are in fact the true measure of a person's worth and success, not their resume or rank.
As I said in the previous post: For someone to imagine that one job is better than another, simply because of the higher status and higher pay, is really missing the point, that ultimately what matters most is a person's happiness, quality of life, and peace of mind...the rest is of trivial importance.
Spirituality is the domain that places value on things that cannot be objectively measured. Things that are more subjective and less tangible, but not necessarily any less important. Things like happiness, character and love, being a good person, feeling like you have a meaningful and purposeful existence, irrespective of your achievements or lack thereof.
So of course the hierarchical materialist is going to devalue such things. You need to recognize this point of view for what it is. A materialist devalues anything subjective. Which is why they place such a high importance on a person's rank and resume, how much money you make, where you went to school, what you do for a living...because those are all things that can be objectively measured.
And yet, I would argue that in reality it is those subjective spiritual qualities that actually matter most, that are the true measure of a person's success, not money or status.
What, you don't think so?
You could have all the money and status in the world, but what good would it be without love, happiness, and peace of mind? You will have gained the whole world, while losing your soul in the process. And by soul I mean authenticity, happiness, and love. You could have all the fame and fortune in the world, but in actuality you would be the biggest loser of them all.
Top Dog. Alpha Bitch. I sold my soul, so that I could trample upon those below. Yeah. You feel better now Big Man? Now that you won this game of dog eat dog? And yet, you still grow old, get sick, and die like everyone else. Your degrees, money, and status mean absolutely nothing in the end. It's a fool's game to think otherwise.
It occurred to me that the whole idea that the sum total of a person's worth can be defined by their resume, stems not only from hierarchical and authoritarian thinking, but also is an entirely materialistic point of view.
The materialistic (atheistic and anti-spiritual) perspective is one that only values or counts that which can be objectively measured. Numbers. Statistics. Titles. Ranks. Grades. Resumes. Income. Socio-economic class.
Under such a point of view anything that cannot be objectively measured is either completely dismissed or significantly devalued. That everything that you are can be summed up on a piece of paper. That your resume and your net worth is what most defines your value as a human being.
Therefore such things as being a good person (character, ethics, altruism), and such things as happiness and love, meaning and purpose, are valued less than the size of your bank account, where you went to school, and your job title.
And according to such logic, the poor and less educated person who is happy, ethical, and altruistic, is valued less than a millionaire with a Phd from an Ivy League school, who may not be very ethical, altruistic, or even happy.
Only a materialist would think this way.
For the spiritually impoverished materialist who discounts anything subjective as being insignificant, the only aspiration that remains is material achievement. Achieving high status and material success. To be top dog. King of the mountain. Not to help others, but to be higher than others. To go as high as you can go, so that you can gloat in your success and look down at all the losers below.
YEAH. BIG MAN. TOP DOG. Lawyer. Billionaire. CEO. PhD. The grand pecking order of snobbery.
How sad. How smallminded. How pathetic actually, those who are limited by such hierarchical materialistic thinking. What a petty mind that looks upon people in such a way, that ranks them as superior or inferior based solely on resume and appearance alone. Such thinking is along the lines of dog eat dog. Top dog. Alpha dog. Beta dog. Winners and losers. That to win the game you must amass the most money and the most status. If you don't do that, then you are a loser irrespective of anything else.
But you know what? The alpha dog is still just a dog. More like a domesticated circus animal jumping through hoops, begging for treats, seeking praise from its masters.
Many that are locked into this hierarchical mentality, of looking down upon others who have achieved less, are actually deeply insecure people, who use achievements as compensation for their own deep seated feelings of inferiority.
Hierarchical elitism, the mentality of dog eat dog, aspiring to be top dog, while looking down upon others below, is a type of superiority complex masking feelings of insecurity and inferiority. Only an inferior person is fixated on rank, requires lots of titles and pats on the back, and needs to look down on others in order to feel better about themselves. To such people their entire confidence, identity, and self worth depends entirely on their material achievements, on how much money and status they have. They are truly enslaved people, as without such things they would feel utterly lost and broken.
As I said before a truly superior person does not gloat or brag. They do not think less of someone for their lack of ambition or achievement. A truly superior person has transcended the mentality of dogs, of being an alpha dog or a beta dog. And is truly free. Is truly their own master.
By contrast hierarchical materialism is a prison for the mind, because it traps people in a perpetual rat race of dog eat dog competition, where the epitome of success is measured solely by money and status, and the only things valued in life are what can be objectively quantified.
The reason why such thinking is flawed is because those subjective qualites DO matter. I would even argue that it is these subjective qualities that really make the person, are in fact the true measure of a person's worth and success, not their resume or rank.
As I said in the previous post: For someone to imagine that one job is better than another, simply because of the higher status and higher pay, is really missing the point, that ultimately what matters most is a person's happiness, quality of life, and peace of mind...the rest is of trivial importance.
Spirituality is the domain that places value on things that cannot be objectively measured. Things that are more subjective and less tangible, but not necessarily any less important. Things like happiness, character and love, being a good person, feeling like you have a meaningful and purposeful existence, irrespective of your achievements or lack thereof.
So of course the hierarchical materialist is going to devalue such things. You need to recognize this point of view for what it is. A materialist devalues anything subjective. Which is why they place such a high importance on a person's rank and resume, how much money you make, where you went to school, what you do for a living...because those are all things that can be objectively measured.
And yet, I would argue that in reality it is those subjective spiritual qualities that actually matter most, that are the true measure of a person's success, not money or status.
What, you don't think so?
You could have all the money and status in the world, but what good would it be without love, happiness, and peace of mind? You will have gained the whole world, while losing your soul in the process. And by soul I mean authenticity, happiness, and love. You could have all the fame and fortune in the world, but in actuality you would be the biggest loser of them all.
Top Dog. Alpha Bitch. I sold my soul, so that I could trample upon those below. Yeah. You feel better now Big Man? Now that you won this game of dog eat dog? And yet, you still grow old, get sick, and die like everyone else. Your degrees, money, and status mean absolutely nothing in the end. It's a fool's game to think otherwise.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Character is the True Measure of Success
I'm not sure I like the title of the previous post. I agree with everything I said there (though maybe my digs against the military may have been in poor taste), except that the problem I think is less about hierarchical thinking, and more about authoritarian thinking, thinking that values wealth, power, and prestige higher than intelligence, creativity, and character.
I don't have a problem with designating certain qualities or types of behavior as being either inferior or superior. There are legitimate distinctions of value. There is right and wrong. Good and bad. Behavior worth emulating and behavior worth eliminating. You could say those are human made judgments, and are thus relative, but we couldn't have an ethical system without them, and I think that having some standard of morality is a vital component of any civilized society.
I think that there ARE superior and inferior people, but what makes a person superior has nothing to do with academic achievements or financial success or genetic determinism, and has everything to do with character.
Some people are born having more advantages than others, having greater health, beauty, strength, intelligence, and better opportunities in life, but anyone can improve their character. Everyone has the opportunity to become a more ethical person, a more disciplined person, a happier, and more authentic person. Character development is truly an equal opportunity for all.
I'm not opposed to achievement. Or against those who aspire to academic or financial success. I am not opposed to the rich, or to those aspiring to be rich and successful in their careers. Some people have more of a need to jump through hoops than others, to win awards and medals and praise, to be publicly recognized for their achievements. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not really my thing, but if that's your thing, by all means go for it. I just don't think that those things are a true measure of a person's worth.
And I think it's wrong to look down on others who do not share your level of ambition. It is wrong to have a low opinion of someone because they do not have a degree, or do not have a high paying job. If they don't have a problem with their station in life, you shouldn't either.
Be concerned with yourself. If you decided to get a degree, and are happy with your decision to do so, there is no reason to judge others who did not aspire to do the same thing as you. For someone to imagine that one job is better than another, simply because of the higher status and higher pay, is really missing the point, that ultimately what matters most is a person's happiness, quality of life, and peace of mind...the rest is of trivial importance.
A person's level of education, employment, and income, also known as their socioeconomic status, does not define the worth of the whole person.
It is a mistake to suggest that someone with a college degree is a superior person to someone without a college degree.
Why? Because the last I checked there is no such thing as a degree for comprehensive human excellence, character, wisdom, and enlightenment. There is not a degree for being a polymath or renaissance man or an enlightened sage. There is not a degree for being a good person or a happy person, nor is there a degree for being a superior person.
But people ARE different. People are not all equal, in the sense that people are not all the same. There are differences of personality, intelligence, creativity, knowledge, and skill. People have different interests, different talents, different strengths and weaknesses. And yes there are better schools with better teachers offering a better education. There is a difference between Harvard and the local small town community college. There is a difference between someone with a BS in Physics and someone having a PhD in Physics. Just as there are real differences between the level of skill of amateur baseball players and professional baseball players.
I'm not denying that there are different levels of skill and talent. Not everyone is equally skilled or talented. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer, because not everyone is temperamentally or intellectually suited for it. But achieving mastery in one area, or even in several areas, does not mean that you have achieved mastery in all areas.
No one is superior at all things. Someone may be a superior craftsman but an inferior businessman. Someone may be a superior teacher but an inferior counselor. Someone may be a superior musician but an inferior manager. Someone could have a superior intellect, while at the same time totally neglecting their own health. And someone could hypothetically be superior at any one of those things, and yet be an inferior husband or father. Could be extremely intelligent, but not a very nice person. They could be extremely successful in their line of work, while at the same time in their personal life may be extremely greedy, dishonest, unfriendly, and unkind.
Degrees are entirely academic, skill specific, and job specific. Having a law degree, may suggest that you have a superior knowledge of the law, but does not guarantee that you are lawful or ethical, nor does it assure your allegiance to the principles of truth and justice. There is a difference between what you do for a living and the life you actually live. Much of your life may revolve around your job, but that is not the whole story. You are more than your job. You are more than your income. You are more than your possessions. You are more than your education and degrees or lack thereof. You are more than your personal history. You are not just what you have done, but also what you think, what you say, and how you treat people day to day, whether you are at work, at the store, at a park, or walking down the street.
Having a degree, doesn't make you a superior person, it just means that you are highly skilled and knowledgeable in one specific area. You may be a superior doctor or historian or architect, but at the same time you may be a complete failure in some other area of your life. In other words, being good at your job or having a higher status job does not necessarily make you a better person, a happy person, or a superior person.
Whereas someone who works as a cashier, may not have a very challenging or materially rewarding job, but maybe the quality of their life outside of work makes up for it. Maybe their priority is to their family or their religion, or maybe they have a number of outside hobbies that enrich their lives. Maybe they are a talented artist or musician, but they have no interest in making a career out of it, are content not making a lot of money, not out of laziness, but because they put their priorities on other things that perhaps cannot be quantified in an objective manner.
My whole point is that despite our differences everyone is good at something. No one is superior at everything, or inferior at everything. And being a superior person should primarily be defined by such things as character and quality of life, not by degrees, job titles, or income.
I don't have a problem with designating certain qualities or types of behavior as being either inferior or superior. There are legitimate distinctions of value. There is right and wrong. Good and bad. Behavior worth emulating and behavior worth eliminating. You could say those are human made judgments, and are thus relative, but we couldn't have an ethical system without them, and I think that having some standard of morality is a vital component of any civilized society.
I think that there ARE superior and inferior people, but what makes a person superior has nothing to do with academic achievements or financial success or genetic determinism, and has everything to do with character.
Some people are born having more advantages than others, having greater health, beauty, strength, intelligence, and better opportunities in life, but anyone can improve their character. Everyone has the opportunity to become a more ethical person, a more disciplined person, a happier, and more authentic person. Character development is truly an equal opportunity for all.
I'm not opposed to achievement. Or against those who aspire to academic or financial success. I am not opposed to the rich, or to those aspiring to be rich and successful in their careers. Some people have more of a need to jump through hoops than others, to win awards and medals and praise, to be publicly recognized for their achievements. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not really my thing, but if that's your thing, by all means go for it. I just don't think that those things are a true measure of a person's worth.
And I think it's wrong to look down on others who do not share your level of ambition. It is wrong to have a low opinion of someone because they do not have a degree, or do not have a high paying job. If they don't have a problem with their station in life, you shouldn't either.
Be concerned with yourself. If you decided to get a degree, and are happy with your decision to do so, there is no reason to judge others who did not aspire to do the same thing as you. For someone to imagine that one job is better than another, simply because of the higher status and higher pay, is really missing the point, that ultimately what matters most is a person's happiness, quality of life, and peace of mind...the rest is of trivial importance.
A person's level of education, employment, and income, also known as their socioeconomic status, does not define the worth of the whole person.
It is a mistake to suggest that someone with a college degree is a superior person to someone without a college degree.
Why? Because the last I checked there is no such thing as a degree for comprehensive human excellence, character, wisdom, and enlightenment. There is not a degree for being a polymath or renaissance man or an enlightened sage. There is not a degree for being a good person or a happy person, nor is there a degree for being a superior person.
But people ARE different. People are not all equal, in the sense that people are not all the same. There are differences of personality, intelligence, creativity, knowledge, and skill. People have different interests, different talents, different strengths and weaknesses. And yes there are better schools with better teachers offering a better education. There is a difference between Harvard and the local small town community college. There is a difference between someone with a BS in Physics and someone having a PhD in Physics. Just as there are real differences between the level of skill of amateur baseball players and professional baseball players.
I'm not denying that there are different levels of skill and talent. Not everyone is equally skilled or talented. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer, because not everyone is temperamentally or intellectually suited for it. But achieving mastery in one area, or even in several areas, does not mean that you have achieved mastery in all areas.
No one is superior at all things. Someone may be a superior craftsman but an inferior businessman. Someone may be a superior teacher but an inferior counselor. Someone may be a superior musician but an inferior manager. Someone could have a superior intellect, while at the same time totally neglecting their own health. And someone could hypothetically be superior at any one of those things, and yet be an inferior husband or father. Could be extremely intelligent, but not a very nice person. They could be extremely successful in their line of work, while at the same time in their personal life may be extremely greedy, dishonest, unfriendly, and unkind.
Degrees are entirely academic, skill specific, and job specific. Having a law degree, may suggest that you have a superior knowledge of the law, but does not guarantee that you are lawful or ethical, nor does it assure your allegiance to the principles of truth and justice. There is a difference between what you do for a living and the life you actually live. Much of your life may revolve around your job, but that is not the whole story. You are more than your job. You are more than your income. You are more than your possessions. You are more than your education and degrees or lack thereof. You are more than your personal history. You are not just what you have done, but also what you think, what you say, and how you treat people day to day, whether you are at work, at the store, at a park, or walking down the street.
Having a degree, doesn't make you a superior person, it just means that you are highly skilled and knowledgeable in one specific area. You may be a superior doctor or historian or architect, but at the same time you may be a complete failure in some other area of your life. In other words, being good at your job or having a higher status job does not necessarily make you a better person, a happy person, or a superior person.
Whereas someone who works as a cashier, may not have a very challenging or materially rewarding job, but maybe the quality of their life outside of work makes up for it. Maybe their priority is to their family or their religion, or maybe they have a number of outside hobbies that enrich their lives. Maybe they are a talented artist or musician, but they have no interest in making a career out of it, are content not making a lot of money, not out of laziness, but because they put their priorities on other things that perhaps cannot be quantified in an objective manner.
My whole point is that despite our differences everyone is good at something. No one is superior at everything, or inferior at everything. And being a superior person should primarily be defined by such things as character and quality of life, not by degrees, job titles, or income.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
The Small-Mindedness of Hierarchical Thinking
Hierarchical thinking is said to originate in the R-Complex, also known as the Reptilian brain, which is the most primitive and least evolved part of your brain, associated with the basic urges of survival, fight or flight, might is right, competition, aggression, territoriality, and ritualistic behavior.
Whereas our more evolved Neo-Cortex is the source of both analytical thinking (left brain) and empathy, love, creativity, and intuition (right brain).
I'm not saying there aren't natural hierarchies in the world, but I'm disputing the criteria most often associated with hierarchical thinking used to designate what qualities are valued as higher or lower.
I don't judge people by their social status, I judge them by their characters. Having a PhD and being a multi-millionaire doesn't make you a better person in and of itself. Being a rich and educated asshole, doesn't make you any less of an asshole. I do not equate social rank with worth; or money, property, and titles of distinction with value.
Whereas hierarchical thinking is generally associated with ranking people based on how much wealth and power they have. Those with the least wealth and power are ranked lowest and valued the least, and those with the most wealth and power are ranked the highest and valued the most.
According to hierarchical thinking I am a FUCKING LOSER who may as well be DEAD.
Well fortunately I do not share that point of view, so I can assure you that you do not need to be on suicide alert. I will not be jumping off any bridges anytime soon, or causing any physical harm to anyone. But I am feeling rather pissed off today with those who harbor this small minded hierarchical way of thinking, and so I use this blog to scream out my rage, particularly at those small minded FUCKS in the MILITARY. And yes I am aware that my aggression and animosity is also quite small minded. This will pass. I'm just venting.
Did you know that there are people who look down upon the poor and the unschooled and the unskilled, and see those who work in "lowly" positions, like dishwasher or cashier or janitor, as being inferior people?
In other words, that if you have a shitty job, than that means you are a shitty person. That if you have a menial labor job, or heaven forbid no job at all, you are a LOSER! End of story.
That your worth as a human being is defined exclusively by your status in society, which in turn is defined by income and job title alone. And that such things as honesty, kindness, compassion, creativity, happiness, and goodwill don't mean shit.
That your job (and how much money you make) and your education (whether you have an advanced degree or not, and if so from where) defines your status in society, and those with low status are inferior to those with high status (which is largely determined by how much money and power and prestige you have). That a university professor is superior to a high school teacher. And a university professor at an Ivy League college is superior to a professor at a community college.
And if you didn't go to college at all, you are an inferior mongrel.
And if you did go to college, those who graduated from prestigious Ivy League schools are superior to those who graduated from less prestigious Community colleges or State schools.
That the more money you make, the more property you own, and the higher status job you have, makes you a better person than someone making less money, who doesn't own property, and has a low status job or no job at all.
And that if you are poor, and apply for government aid, such as food stamps, than you are a social parasite, the scum of the earth who shouldn't even be allowed to live.
These are all examples of hierarchical thinking. Hierarchical thinking is the standard of the military. Therefore the military is inherently both elitist and fascist. Just making an observation here. The U.S. military in its present form is incompatible with democracy, and is in fact at odds with it.
I DESPISE the military. And as much as I hate washing dishes I would take a low status dishwasher job any day, over working for the military in any capacity whatsoever. [Edit: Actually I would have to be on the brink of starvation to ever take a dishwasher job, but I think you probably get the point.]
While I do recognize certain natural hierarchies in nature, and I do see differences in people, that contrary to what I said in a previous post about equality, I do recognize that people are not all equal. However, I judge people primarily by the content of their characters, not by their status in society, not by how much money they make, or what they own, or where they went to school.
Education is a wonderful thing, but to view having an advanced degree and a higher level job and income as proof of superiority, to me is not the least bit superior at all. Bragging and gloating is not superior, it is inferior. Someone with a higher quality of education, or who is more intelligent and knows more than others, should be eager to share what they know, to help people who know less or have less than them, not to hold others in contempt for their lack of education and skills.
That's fucking inferior. Contempt for the poor and the uneducated, is in itself a contemptible and inferior point of view.
In my view the superior person doesn't gloat or boast or brag, doesn't use their superiority to look down at others, or to oppress others, or to make people feel like worthless pieces of shit for their lack of achievement. To the contrary, the superior person uses their superior knowledge, skills, and power to help others. Not to give them a free lunch, but maybe give them some free advice, pay them a compliment, focus on their strengths, rather than their weaknesses. Looking for the good, rather than dwelling exclusively on the bad.
Otherwise you're just being a conceited asshole. An arrogant prick. A cold hearted stuck up bitch. And far as I'm concerned there is nothing superior about that. Such a person is a poseur. Their not superior. Their just pretending to be, because only a small minded person looks down on others in order to feel better about themselves. Such a person is actually the true inferior, posing as a superior person. Their a fucking fake.
Beware of arrogant poseurs, the wannabe elite, who are so insecure with themselves that they need to look down upon others in order to feel better about themselves. That's a red flag warning. Thought you'd like to know in case you ever encounter anyone like that.
I'm not saying there aren't natural hierarchies in the world, but I'm disputing the criteria most often associated with hierarchical thinking used to designate what qualities are valued as higher or lower.
I don't judge people by their social status, I judge them by their characters. Having a PhD and being a multi-millionaire doesn't make you a better person in and of itself. Being a rich and educated asshole, doesn't make you any less of an asshole. I do not equate social rank with worth; or money, property, and titles of distinction with value.
Whereas hierarchical thinking is generally associated with ranking people based on how much wealth and power they have. Those with the least wealth and power are ranked lowest and valued the least, and those with the most wealth and power are ranked the highest and valued the most.
According to hierarchical thinking I am a FUCKING LOSER who may as well be DEAD.
Well fortunately I do not share that point of view, so I can assure you that you do not need to be on suicide alert. I will not be jumping off any bridges anytime soon, or causing any physical harm to anyone. But I am feeling rather pissed off today with those who harbor this small minded hierarchical way of thinking, and so I use this blog to scream out my rage, particularly at those small minded FUCKS in the MILITARY. And yes I am aware that my aggression and animosity is also quite small minded. This will pass. I'm just venting.
Did you know that there are people who look down upon the poor and the unschooled and the unskilled, and see those who work in "lowly" positions, like dishwasher or cashier or janitor, as being inferior people?
In other words, that if you have a shitty job, than that means you are a shitty person. That if you have a menial labor job, or heaven forbid no job at all, you are a LOSER! End of story.
That your worth as a human being is defined exclusively by your status in society, which in turn is defined by income and job title alone. And that such things as honesty, kindness, compassion, creativity, happiness, and goodwill don't mean shit.
That your job (and how much money you make) and your education (whether you have an advanced degree or not, and if so from where) defines your status in society, and those with low status are inferior to those with high status (which is largely determined by how much money and power and prestige you have). That a university professor is superior to a high school teacher. And a university professor at an Ivy League college is superior to a professor at a community college.
And if you didn't go to college at all, you are an inferior mongrel.
And if you did go to college, those who graduated from prestigious Ivy League schools are superior to those who graduated from less prestigious Community colleges or State schools.
That the more money you make, the more property you own, and the higher status job you have, makes you a better person than someone making less money, who doesn't own property, and has a low status job or no job at all.
And that if you are poor, and apply for government aid, such as food stamps, than you are a social parasite, the scum of the earth who shouldn't even be allowed to live.
These are all examples of hierarchical thinking. Hierarchical thinking is the standard of the military. Therefore the military is inherently both elitist and fascist. Just making an observation here. The U.S. military in its present form is incompatible with democracy, and is in fact at odds with it.
I DESPISE the military. And as much as I hate washing dishes I would take a low status dishwasher job any day, over working for the military in any capacity whatsoever. [Edit: Actually I would have to be on the brink of starvation to ever take a dishwasher job, but I think you probably get the point.]
While I do recognize certain natural hierarchies in nature, and I do see differences in people, that contrary to what I said in a previous post about equality, I do recognize that people are not all equal. However, I judge people primarily by the content of their characters, not by their status in society, not by how much money they make, or what they own, or where they went to school.
Education is a wonderful thing, but to view having an advanced degree and a higher level job and income as proof of superiority, to me is not the least bit superior at all. Bragging and gloating is not superior, it is inferior. Someone with a higher quality of education, or who is more intelligent and knows more than others, should be eager to share what they know, to help people who know less or have less than them, not to hold others in contempt for their lack of education and skills.
That's fucking inferior. Contempt for the poor and the uneducated, is in itself a contemptible and inferior point of view.
In my view the superior person doesn't gloat or boast or brag, doesn't use their superiority to look down at others, or to oppress others, or to make people feel like worthless pieces of shit for their lack of achievement. To the contrary, the superior person uses their superior knowledge, skills, and power to help others. Not to give them a free lunch, but maybe give them some free advice, pay them a compliment, focus on their strengths, rather than their weaknesses. Looking for the good, rather than dwelling exclusively on the bad.
Otherwise you're just being a conceited asshole. An arrogant prick. A cold hearted stuck up bitch. And far as I'm concerned there is nothing superior about that. Such a person is a poseur. Their not superior. Their just pretending to be, because only a small minded person looks down on others in order to feel better about themselves. Such a person is actually the true inferior, posing as a superior person. Their a fucking fake.
Beware of arrogant poseurs, the wannabe elite, who are so insecure with themselves that they need to look down upon others in order to feel better about themselves. That's a red flag warning. Thought you'd like to know in case you ever encounter anyone like that.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Why Beauty Matters
Every time I post something negative, I feel like I need to burn some sage, to purify the blog of the negative vibes that may have accumulated here from it. Well obviously since this is an abstraction, and I can't actually burn sage here, the best I could do is either post a video or photograph of me doing so, or else post something more positive and uplifting to counteract the negativity.
So here is something that is neither exceptional or mediocre, sort of an upbeat interlude, a stream of consciousness ode to beauty and the sublime. Although it's technically not an ode, in terms of the rules of poetry it's not even a poem, more of a poetic prose, but it is an ode in spirit, and that's what counts.
So here is something that is neither exceptional or mediocre, sort of an upbeat interlude, a stream of consciousness ode to beauty and the sublime. Although it's technically not an ode, in terms of the rules of poetry it's not even a poem, more of a poetic prose, but it is an ode in spirit, and that's what counts.
 |
| The Ancient of Days by William Blake |
"The two sides of 'true' art are beauty, which lifts the soul, and the sublime, which shatters the ego." - Joseph Campbell
To lift the soul and shatter the ego - what do you think that means?
To rise above limitations, to gain a higher, wider, deeper, clearer, and more authentic perspective; to expand your boundaries of self into the infinite, like a drop of water (ego) in the ocean of existence realizing that it is actually the whole ocean and not merely a drop.
Your body and sense of self is like a drop of water, but your consciousness is potentially as vast as the ocean of infinity.
Awareness of beauty and the sublime, is an experience that connects us to the divine, awakening the sacred dimension of the mind, cosmic consciousness refined.
Why does beauty matter?
The appreciation of beauty and the sublime matters, because it is an act of love, it connects you to the experience of love. Beauty awakens the heart, reminds us that we are not alone, that both life and love is a collaborative affair, and life without love would be full of despair.
Love is the root of happiness. I don't mean love only in a romantic sense. While that's certainly an authentic option, it's not the only one. Although love by its very nature is the epitome of relationship. Whether that be relationship between people, or relationship between self and the world. The world is filled with beauty and opportunities for connecting to the sublime. It is all around us, above and below, within and without.
"The sublime is that which arouses sentiments of awe and reverence and a sense of vastness and power outreaching human comprehension." - Joseph Campbell
When you experience the sublime, it takes you outside of your mind. It activates the higher levels of consciousness beyond intellect, beyond the confines of the left hemisphere of the neo-cortex of your brain, into the wordless intuitive knowing of direct experience.
Artistic creations, music, poetry, literature, and nature can trigger this experience. Recognition not just of outward beauty, but inward beauty, beautiful ideals, the experience of love, joy, and ecstasy; the appreciation of beauty, and the communion with God, nature, the sacred totality of the universe, the magic and mystery of the sublime.
You don't even have to be religious or believe in God, if you look at the sky, at the face of a flower, the eyes of a lover, in the spirit of open-mindedness and wonder, tuning into the sacred majesty within the heart of the world, feeling a great joy and exultation and reverence for life, this too can connect you to this "vastness and power outreaching human comprehension."
To lift the soul and shatter the ego - what do you think that means?
To rise above limitations, to gain a higher, wider, deeper, clearer, and more authentic perspective; to expand your boundaries of self into the infinite, like a drop of water (ego) in the ocean of existence realizing that it is actually the whole ocean and not merely a drop.
Your body and sense of self is like a drop of water, but your consciousness is potentially as vast as the ocean of infinity.
Awareness of beauty and the sublime, is an experience that connects us to the divine, awakening the sacred dimension of the mind, cosmic consciousness refined.
Why does beauty matter?
The appreciation of beauty and the sublime matters, because it is an act of love, it connects you to the experience of love. Beauty awakens the heart, reminds us that we are not alone, that both life and love is a collaborative affair, and life without love would be full of despair.
Love is the root of happiness. I don't mean love only in a romantic sense. While that's certainly an authentic option, it's not the only one. Although love by its very nature is the epitome of relationship. Whether that be relationship between people, or relationship between self and the world. The world is filled with beauty and opportunities for connecting to the sublime. It is all around us, above and below, within and without.
"The sublime is that which arouses sentiments of awe and reverence and a sense of vastness and power outreaching human comprehension." - Joseph Campbell
When you experience the sublime, it takes you outside of your mind. It activates the higher levels of consciousness beyond intellect, beyond the confines of the left hemisphere of the neo-cortex of your brain, into the wordless intuitive knowing of direct experience.
Artistic creations, music, poetry, literature, and nature can trigger this experience. Recognition not just of outward beauty, but inward beauty, beautiful ideals, the experience of love, joy, and ecstasy; the appreciation of beauty, and the communion with God, nature, the sacred totality of the universe, the magic and mystery of the sublime.
You don't even have to be religious or believe in God, if you look at the sky, at the face of a flower, the eyes of a lover, in the spirit of open-mindedness and wonder, tuning into the sacred majesty within the heart of the world, feeling a great joy and exultation and reverence for life, this too can connect you to this "vastness and power outreaching human comprehension."
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Esoteric Notes Redux
This is a picture of one of my notepads filled with my handwritten notes. If you know anything about handwriting analysis this picture could possibly provide a goldmine of information, that is if you can read it. I write so fast that my handwriting is barely readable - which in certain circumstances could be a good thing - but I can read it just fine. I've even thought about using a mirror to write backwards, to conceal by private handwritten journals from prying eyes. Haven't done that yet, but I very well may.
I'm always reading and taking a lot of notes. I have several notebooks, notepads, and binders filled with notes: passages from books, famous quotes, lists of books to read, names of people and places, words to define, subjects to look up online, and random insights that enter my mind written down in short form to possibly explore and elaborate upon another time.
Obviously many of my posts here are written randomly in the moment, as stream of consciousness musings in varying degrees of lucidity, some are written from memory, and others are based on an idea saved in one of my many notepads. I use these notes as writing prompts, and thinking prompts, as inspiration for future posts, or topics to think about and explore further.
It's particularly frustrating though when I sometimes forget or am too lazy to attribute the source of a quote. Seeing as though these notepads of mine are a mixture of different kinds of notes, some are my own original ideas written in my own words, and others are found and quoted word for word, so when I return to these notes months later, if I don't write down the source, I may not remember whether I wrote it or if someone else wrote it.
You could say it is the idea itself that matters most, not the person who thought of it, but I think it is useful to attribute the source, not simply as a token of credit and appreciation, but as a reference for finding additional related material. For instance, if you like a quote and know who coined it, you can look up the author and find more quotes of a similar nature.
So even if your notes remain private and unshared with others, it is a useful habit to get into to always attribute the source of your notes whenever possible, such as the name of the book and its author (or movie, website, song, or whatever), because later down the road when you page through your notepads, you may find that the name of the source may become a valuable note in itself - a word prompt leading to further investigation.
I am a very curious person and a very creative person. I am always learning. My mind is very active. If I'm not engaged in learning something, reading, thinking, and actively studying and contemplating the world, I would probably wither away. My mind would shrink. My confidence and will to live would fall. And the overall quality of my life, my sense of meaning and purpose, would become greatly diminished.
My interest in learning is a lifetime pursuit. But I am not an academic by any means (obviously). I have no interest in even going back to school, unless it were a job requirement, I feel that most of my learning can be done independently. To me learning is not merely vocational, it's recreational and inspirational. It is a way of life, not just something you do to make money or to get ahead materially, that's the least of it.
I'm not looking to be a walking encyclopedia, I'm looking to be a creative genius. I'm after wisdom. Not useless information. Any robot can memorize books and regurgitate facts. I'm looking for something more than that. I'm looking for freedom and creativity, independence and innovation, a deepening of awareness and an expansion of consciousness. I don't want to be a machine, I want to be a fully conscious, fully realized, creative, free thinking human being.
Learning, reading, note taking, is something I do in my spare time, but it makes up a very large chunk of how I spend my time. It is just the way I am. Like I've said here many times before: reading, thinking, exercising, and spending time in nature is pretty much my primary preoccupation.
This is another reason why I blog, because blogging is an extension of this creative note taking process, but it is interactive. Even if you never leave a comment, this blog is interactive. When you're sitting in your home, or wherever you may be reading this blog, unbeknownst to you you may actually be reading this at the same exact time as someone else on the other side of the planet.
What may initially appear to be a solitary individualistic experience, is actually a shared group experience. We are all observers and participants here. As soon as I'm finished writing, I'm a blog reader just like the rest of you. And the interaction occurs by reading or looking at what is here, engaging with it mentally, being affected by these words, makes you a participant too. You participate by being touched by these words, and responding to them in thought, in your own way.
It's kind of a trip if you think about it. I watch the watchers. You watch the watched. This insight is in the domain of quantum physics. How the observer becomes a participant, and the participant becomes the observed. Both influence each other. Your presence of attention influences the observed and the observed influences the observer. Rough. In my own words. Couldn't find a better quote. I had a great quantum physics quote that I think I accidentally threw away.
Here are a couple of relevant quotes transcribed from my notepad:
"No reality without a perception of reality - is the first rule of quantum physics."
- John A. Wheeler
"The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed" - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
 |
| Cym's secret notes - Click to see LARGER |
I'm always reading and taking a lot of notes. I have several notebooks, notepads, and binders filled with notes: passages from books, famous quotes, lists of books to read, names of people and places, words to define, subjects to look up online, and random insights that enter my mind written down in short form to possibly explore and elaborate upon another time.
Obviously many of my posts here are written randomly in the moment, as stream of consciousness musings in varying degrees of lucidity, some are written from memory, and others are based on an idea saved in one of my many notepads. I use these notes as writing prompts, and thinking prompts, as inspiration for future posts, or topics to think about and explore further.
It's particularly frustrating though when I sometimes forget or am too lazy to attribute the source of a quote. Seeing as though these notepads of mine are a mixture of different kinds of notes, some are my own original ideas written in my own words, and others are found and quoted word for word, so when I return to these notes months later, if I don't write down the source, I may not remember whether I wrote it or if someone else wrote it.
You could say it is the idea itself that matters most, not the person who thought of it, but I think it is useful to attribute the source, not simply as a token of credit and appreciation, but as a reference for finding additional related material. For instance, if you like a quote and know who coined it, you can look up the author and find more quotes of a similar nature.
So even if your notes remain private and unshared with others, it is a useful habit to get into to always attribute the source of your notes whenever possible, such as the name of the book and its author (or movie, website, song, or whatever), because later down the road when you page through your notepads, you may find that the name of the source may become a valuable note in itself - a word prompt leading to further investigation.
I am a very curious person and a very creative person. I am always learning. My mind is very active. If I'm not engaged in learning something, reading, thinking, and actively studying and contemplating the world, I would probably wither away. My mind would shrink. My confidence and will to live would fall. And the overall quality of my life, my sense of meaning and purpose, would become greatly diminished.
My interest in learning is a lifetime pursuit. But I am not an academic by any means (obviously). I have no interest in even going back to school, unless it were a job requirement, I feel that most of my learning can be done independently. To me learning is not merely vocational, it's recreational and inspirational. It is a way of life, not just something you do to make money or to get ahead materially, that's the least of it.
I'm not looking to be a walking encyclopedia, I'm looking to be a creative genius. I'm after wisdom. Not useless information. Any robot can memorize books and regurgitate facts. I'm looking for something more than that. I'm looking for freedom and creativity, independence and innovation, a deepening of awareness and an expansion of consciousness. I don't want to be a machine, I want to be a fully conscious, fully realized, creative, free thinking human being.
Learning, reading, note taking, is something I do in my spare time, but it makes up a very large chunk of how I spend my time. It is just the way I am. Like I've said here many times before: reading, thinking, exercising, and spending time in nature is pretty much my primary preoccupation.
This is another reason why I blog, because blogging is an extension of this creative note taking process, but it is interactive. Even if you never leave a comment, this blog is interactive. When you're sitting in your home, or wherever you may be reading this blog, unbeknownst to you you may actually be reading this at the same exact time as someone else on the other side of the planet.
What may initially appear to be a solitary individualistic experience, is actually a shared group experience. We are all observers and participants here. As soon as I'm finished writing, I'm a blog reader just like the rest of you. And the interaction occurs by reading or looking at what is here, engaging with it mentally, being affected by these words, makes you a participant too. You participate by being touched by these words, and responding to them in thought, in your own way.
It's kind of a trip if you think about it. I watch the watchers. You watch the watched. This insight is in the domain of quantum physics. How the observer becomes a participant, and the participant becomes the observed. Both influence each other. Your presence of attention influences the observed and the observed influences the observer. Rough. In my own words. Couldn't find a better quote. I had a great quantum physics quote that I think I accidentally threw away.
Here are a couple of relevant quotes transcribed from my notepad:
"No reality without a perception of reality - is the first rule of quantum physics."
- John A. Wheeler
"The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed" - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)