I got asked to write my thoughts on what Obama would need to do, and in what order, once his presidency begins, so I thought I'd put it up here as well...
It does seem like we’re in a pretty confused place, no? War, depression, energy problems, global over-population, and rampant fundamentalism (on every side). It almost feels impossible to know where to begin.
And maybe that’s part of the problem. Any one of these issues by itself could be cataclysmic. How do you decide which to respond to first, when they are so intertwined that you can’t respond to any one in isolation?
At the same time, these are all symptoms of even larger problems. For example, you’ve got to stop the economic meltdown as soon as possible, but the real issue is that we don’t make anything. Everything is done either better or cheaper somewhere else. So our economy is just a service economy- we offer each other services, from banking to law to entertainment. No wonder the stock market fell apart, it’s based on fluff!
And nobody can deny that war, energy problems, and religious fundamentalism are all deeply intertwined. They’re all related to our inability to change. I mean, really, we know that we need to move to alternative energy sources, for liberal environmental and for conservative national sovereignty issues. We need to be able to control our own energy needs, and do it in a way that is both renewable and non-detrimental to the planet we live on. This seems like one of the most obvious things we could say. And somehow we haven’t done it. Even though it’s caused us to go to war, and fomented a lot of hatred against us, we are still resistant.
So here’s my thoughts- after dealing with our current economic crisis, Obama should make our country the leading producer of alternative energy. Everyone around the world is going to need it, no one has claimed the market yet, we’ve got the space and the resource to do it, and it will enable us to drastically cut back our military presence abroad and our dependence on people who don’t particularly like us. And it’s something that conservatives and liberals can get behind.
The other issue that needs to be dealt with is the pervasive feeling of powerlessness. It feels like our overall confidence in humanity’s ability to make positive changes is at an all-time low. Corporate fraud, political corruption, genocides and religious zealotry- who are we supposed to turn to anymore? And I think the response to powerlessness is two things- apathy and violence. People either respond by turning away or by getting angry. And so while many of us in America hope change will happen, but sit back waiting for someone else to do it, many in other countries give up on the political system as a means of change and resort to violence, terrorism, and genocide.
We need to feel confident in the human race’s ability to lift itself up. That we don’t always have to give in to our greed and violence, that we can participate in our own lives and the lives of those around us, and actually have the ability to make things better.
And I have no idea whether or not Obama can do it, but he caused a greater surge in hope and belief through his election than I have seen in a long time.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monkey Wars
Religion has been a cause for a lot of division. But often it's an excuse.
Really, I think the only way there would be no wars is if there were no countries (no groups big enough to have wars).
But that's a bit difficult, no?
No countries is tricky.
But really, for whatever the distinction, religion, country, skin color, whether or not you have stars on your belly (the star-bellied sneetches who live on the beaches), as long as there are big enough groups who will back one person's ideas, you're gonna have war. If two people disagree, vehemently, and can't find any way to solve the situation, they might get into a fight. At worst, maybe they'll kill each other. But if each of them has thousands of followers, you get a war.
It seems like the two simians closest to humans are the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The two of them, in fact, are quite similar to each other as well.
Chimpanzees, like us, are patriarchal societies. And are one of the only animals besides us who have wars, who have big groups getting together to fight one another.
But bonobos are matriarchal societies. And they have no war. They don't even really have much fighting. They are an impressively sharing species.
Oh, and they have sex. Lots of sex. With ever possible combination of bonobo they can find. Male with female, male with male, female with female, in the family, out of the family. Seems the only ones who don't get to have sex are the babies (they wait until six months old or so).
I'm not saying, I'm just saying
Who's your daddy? Maybe who's your mommy!
Really, I think the only way there would be no wars is if there were no countries (no groups big enough to have wars).
But that's a bit difficult, no?
No countries is tricky.
But really, for whatever the distinction, religion, country, skin color, whether or not you have stars on your belly (the star-bellied sneetches who live on the beaches), as long as there are big enough groups who will back one person's ideas, you're gonna have war. If two people disagree, vehemently, and can't find any way to solve the situation, they might get into a fight. At worst, maybe they'll kill each other. But if each of them has thousands of followers, you get a war.
It seems like the two simians closest to humans are the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The two of them, in fact, are quite similar to each other as well.
Chimpanzees, like us, are patriarchal societies. And are one of the only animals besides us who have wars, who have big groups getting together to fight one another.
But bonobos are matriarchal societies. And they have no war. They don't even really have much fighting. They are an impressively sharing species.
Oh, and they have sex. Lots of sex. With ever possible combination of bonobo they can find. Male with female, male with male, female with female, in the family, out of the family. Seems the only ones who don't get to have sex are the babies (they wait until six months old or so).
I'm not saying, I'm just saying
Who's your daddy? Maybe who's your mommy!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Stock Market in the First Place
The stock market has always been a strange thing to me. I mean, the value of the stock of a company has only minimal relation to the actual value of a company. I mean, a stock can go up twice, three times, even six times its value in a day. You can't tell me that company is actual worth six times its value in a day. It sure as hell hasn't made six times as much stuff.
So, you've got this system in which an abstract relationship to money begets more money. In other words, abstract projections on monetary change begets real money which begets real change.
Companies have to base their corporate planning on how to maintain or increase their stock valuation in a quaterly basis. So, the amount that other people will decide that they are worth in play money somehow translates to what they actually are worth. Companies can go backrupt selling the same amount of product that they were selling yesterday if their stock plummets.
What?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.
And the fact that companies have to worry about their short term bottom-line more than their long-term one in order to maintain their stock values is one of the stupidest business models I could possibly imagine.
How could a model that says you should only think about were you will be in three months and ignore where you will be in three years possibly be considered even functional?
This is not some guy, just out of college, not wanting to think any further than the next three months. That's fine.
This is a company which makes something, brings in and expends millions of dollars, and has lots of people working there. It's the business model of a four-year-old.
All for the dictates of a speculative game. Which is all the stock market is. A fucking game. Not based on what a company does, how "good" or "bad" they are, either morally, socially, or economically, but based simply on how much other people want to buy and trade invisible insignificant amounts of ownership of a company, but don't want to have any involvement with the company itself.
Does a stock broker buy Boeing because he has ideas on how they should build new airplanes?
No wonder the stock market is falling apart.
It shouldn't have stayed together this long in the first place.
Time for a new economic model, for fuck's sake!
So, you've got this system in which an abstract relationship to money begets more money. In other words, abstract projections on monetary change begets real money which begets real change.
Companies have to base their corporate planning on how to maintain or increase their stock valuation in a quaterly basis. So, the amount that other people will decide that they are worth in play money somehow translates to what they actually are worth. Companies can go backrupt selling the same amount of product that they were selling yesterday if their stock plummets.
What?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.
And the fact that companies have to worry about their short term bottom-line more than their long-term one in order to maintain their stock values is one of the stupidest business models I could possibly imagine.
How could a model that says you should only think about were you will be in three months and ignore where you will be in three years possibly be considered even functional?
This is not some guy, just out of college, not wanting to think any further than the next three months. That's fine.
This is a company which makes something, brings in and expends millions of dollars, and has lots of people working there. It's the business model of a four-year-old.
All for the dictates of a speculative game. Which is all the stock market is. A fucking game. Not based on what a company does, how "good" or "bad" they are, either morally, socially, or economically, but based simply on how much other people want to buy and trade invisible insignificant amounts of ownership of a company, but don't want to have any involvement with the company itself.
Does a stock broker buy Boeing because he has ideas on how they should build new airplanes?
No wonder the stock market is falling apart.
It shouldn't have stayed together this long in the first place.
Time for a new economic model, for fuck's sake!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
You're Right, You're Beautiful, A Response II
I really enjoyed this comment. It's not too often someone accuses you of leading people onto the path of madmen or beasts (who knew I had that power in the first place?)
Nonetheless, the problem I have with this comment brings up an interesting point to me- the difference between right thought and right action. They aren't necessarily the same thing, and learning to differentiate between the two can be a necessary step in figuring out how to make your way in our brief time.
Adrian's basic argument (which follows), as far as I understand, is that individuals' choices on beauty do not take into account the need, and subtlety, that comes with social interaction. On a most basic example, a psychopath who believes that killing others is beautiful should not simply follow his aesthetic choice and start killing people, that his aesthetics without the lens of shared human experience is a dangerous path, ignorant of morals or social necessity.
Well, yes, I do agree.
But here's the thing-
What you think about beauty shouldn't be your method for determining action. Just because I think something is beautiful has nothing to do with whether I should or shouldn't act on that impulse- it just means that I have my own opinion that is as valid an aesthetic opinion as someone else's. Just because I think some girl is beautiful doesn't mean I get to rape her if she doesn't want to sleep with me. And the methodology of choice for beauty and for action are just different things.
I think too many people take the lens of what they believe without adding the lens of how to apply it to reality. Political ideals are one thing, but it's a much more difficult and subtle, and not to mention useful, thing to try to figure out a way to make others understand it. And so many people take their view and use it to disdain other views (my way is right, other people are stupid).
I just meant that everyone should feel satisfied that what they think is beautiful (themselves, or anything else), is as true as anyone else's opinions. How people choose to act upon this, or any other ideal, is a whole separate matter, and up to them. A serial killer might genuinely think killing is beautiful, and for him it might be. That just doesn't mean he should act on that.
i have a very hard time with your line of thought.
you leave us all mad men, or wandering beasts.
left to ourselves and no one else, sealed in solipsism, the world is indeed as beautiful as the individual's imagination.
and without the bearings against the longitudes of another, with no heed that i am alive relative to the breath of life, i am, therefore i am, because i exist only for myself.
let me be clear because what you say puts all of us in danger of its absence: a monstrous warlord of sudan sees mutilation of a generation, beautiful. his young apprentice sees the absolute brutality of the leader beautiful. i imagine the careful cabal to systematically rape, decimate, then obliterate a race of people might have the same geometric beauty of fractal art for his lieutenants.
beauty can be in the physical world as in ideas, in perception to poetry. but not in everything. and if not everything, then not from everyone.
no, some things are ugly. universally, objectively ugly. perhaps it is difficult to know objective beauty, but it is not so hard to know that there is divine ecumenical revulsion. and therefore, everything cannot be beautiful and everything cannot be right.
Not for humans. That's what separates us from monsters and madness. among humans, there is a shared consciousness or perhaps a shared spirit, tenuous as much as it is real.
step outside, its possible. but you leave behind from that consciousness the equally shared reason and empathy. without that, you're only right because of your ability to negate others by brute strength or size. beasts grazing on a different plane of existence i wish no part of.
Nonetheless, the problem I have with this comment brings up an interesting point to me- the difference between right thought and right action. They aren't necessarily the same thing, and learning to differentiate between the two can be a necessary step in figuring out how to make your way in our brief time.
Adrian's basic argument (which follows), as far as I understand, is that individuals' choices on beauty do not take into account the need, and subtlety, that comes with social interaction. On a most basic example, a psychopath who believes that killing others is beautiful should not simply follow his aesthetic choice and start killing people, that his aesthetics without the lens of shared human experience is a dangerous path, ignorant of morals or social necessity.
Well, yes, I do agree.
But here's the thing-
What you think about beauty shouldn't be your method for determining action. Just because I think something is beautiful has nothing to do with whether I should or shouldn't act on that impulse- it just means that I have my own opinion that is as valid an aesthetic opinion as someone else's. Just because I think some girl is beautiful doesn't mean I get to rape her if she doesn't want to sleep with me. And the methodology of choice for beauty and for action are just different things.
I think too many people take the lens of what they believe without adding the lens of how to apply it to reality. Political ideals are one thing, but it's a much more difficult and subtle, and not to mention useful, thing to try to figure out a way to make others understand it. And so many people take their view and use it to disdain other views (my way is right, other people are stupid).
I just meant that everyone should feel satisfied that what they think is beautiful (themselves, or anything else), is as true as anyone else's opinions. How people choose to act upon this, or any other ideal, is a whole separate matter, and up to them. A serial killer might genuinely think killing is beautiful, and for him it might be. That just doesn't mean he should act on that.
i have a very hard time with your line of thought.
you leave us all mad men, or wandering beasts.
left to ourselves and no one else, sealed in solipsism, the world is indeed as beautiful as the individual's imagination.
and without the bearings against the longitudes of another, with no heed that i am alive relative to the breath of life, i am, therefore i am, because i exist only for myself.
let me be clear because what you say puts all of us in danger of its absence: a monstrous warlord of sudan sees mutilation of a generation, beautiful. his young apprentice sees the absolute brutality of the leader beautiful. i imagine the careful cabal to systematically rape, decimate, then obliterate a race of people might have the same geometric beauty of fractal art for his lieutenants.
beauty can be in the physical world as in ideas, in perception to poetry. but not in everything. and if not everything, then not from everyone.
no, some things are ugly. universally, objectively ugly. perhaps it is difficult to know objective beauty, but it is not so hard to know that there is divine ecumenical revulsion. and therefore, everything cannot be beautiful and everything cannot be right.
Not for humans. That's what separates us from monsters and madness. among humans, there is a shared consciousness or perhaps a shared spirit, tenuous as much as it is real.
step outside, its possible. but you leave behind from that consciousness the equally shared reason and empathy. without that, you're only right because of your ability to negate others by brute strength or size. beasts grazing on a different plane of existence i wish no part of.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
You're Right, You're Beautiful, A Response I
So I received a whole bunch of responses to this one, so I thought I'd address a couple in successive blogs.
Joseph Turian said...
Second of all, that's kind of the point, no? I'm not saying that you should agree with anyone else, just that you have to respect the fact that, outside of your own little subjective world, they are just as right as you are. Similarly, anyone else's little subjective world is no righter than yours. Which means you are completely entitled to hate other people's perspectives. I certainly do. The list of things that other people think are beautiful that a) nauseate me b) just plain old confuse me or c) actively piss me off is fairly high. But that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge they are at least right for themselves (even if I think it shouldn't be right for anyone else!).
And yes, this is trying to take an objective stance on everyone's subjective stances. But one of the things I value very much is the idea of appreciating that other people are as much fully developed people as you are. I don't think you can ever really know what someone else is thinking. But the moment that you are fully aware that they are as real as you are, when they move from background moving scenery to fully aware existent thinking feeling people (and I don't mean in the abstract, I mean in terms of your own subjective understanding of the world), is one of the most beautiful and most connected feelings you can have.
And my point about subjective beauty is just to push that idea along. Respect for the fact that someone else goes through the same process that you do, even if they come out in a whole different place, is a good step towards understanding they are just as human as you are. And not any more human, either.
My personal views lean towards the politically liberal, by and large (in case you haven't figured this out). But among the most important experiences I've had have been conversations with intelligent rational conservatives. I don't agree with them, but I at least have to respect that they have a consistent logic to what they believe, and that it's as sincere and honest for them as it is for me.
I've had some interesting thoughts on the differences between conservatives and liberals of late, but more on that later...
Joseph Turian said...
Second of all, that's kind of the point, no? I'm not saying that you should agree with anyone else, just that you have to respect the fact that, outside of your own little subjective world, they are just as right as you are. Similarly, anyone else's little subjective world is no righter than yours. Which means you are completely entitled to hate other people's perspectives. I certainly do. The list of things that other people think are beautiful that a) nauseate me b) just plain old confuse me or c) actively piss me off is fairly high. But that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge they are at least right for themselves (even if I think it shouldn't be right for anyone else!).
And yes, this is trying to take an objective stance on everyone's subjective stances. But one of the things I value very much is the idea of appreciating that other people are as much fully developed people as you are. I don't think you can ever really know what someone else is thinking. But the moment that you are fully aware that they are as real as you are, when they move from background moving scenery to fully aware existent thinking feeling people (and I don't mean in the abstract, I mean in terms of your own subjective understanding of the world), is one of the most beautiful and most connected feelings you can have.
And my point about subjective beauty is just to push that idea along. Respect for the fact that someone else goes through the same process that you do, even if they come out in a whole different place, is a good step towards understanding they are just as human as you are. And not any more human, either.
My personal views lean towards the politically liberal, by and large (in case you haven't figured this out). But among the most important experiences I've had have been conversations with intelligent rational conservatives. I don't agree with them, but I at least have to respect that they have a consistent logic to what they believe, and that it's as sincere and honest for them as it is for me.
I've had some interesting thoughts on the differences between conservatives and liberals of late, but more on that later...
Obama!!! A Response
So, I received this from a friend of mine, and thought I'd share it (especially since he asked me too!). I must confess, I would have been pretty psyched to see this on the street at night...
Hey, this is Jason the guy that designed ism's CD layout and various other ism things on and off the web. Anyhow, I read your blog regularly and I thought you and your blog readers might enjoy my latest project. My boss wanted to project a huge Obama sign on the front of our building...well I took it to the next level. Please check this very short video out...another designer and I illustrated and animated the entire thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8zPAp11dE
Hey, this is Jason the guy that designed ism's CD layout and various other ism things on and off the web. Anyhow, I read your blog regularly and I thought you and your blog readers might enjoy my latest project. My boss wanted to project a huge Obama sign on the front of our building...well I took it to the next level. Please check this very short video out...another designer and I illustrated and animated the entire thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8zPAp11dE
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
You're Right, You're Beautiful
Check this...
First of all, take your pick- I’m going to use beauty as the example, but it applies just as well to any of the others. The question is subjective vs. objective
1- Subjective beauty is true. Right? I mean, if I think something or someone is beautiful, it’s true for me. There’s no real questioning of that. You might disagree, but you have to acknowledge that my subjective opinion is true for me.
2- Objective beauty is untrue. Or at least, unknowable. Either there is no such thing as objective beauty (do you think there’s actually an objective answer as to who is the most beautiful woman in the world?), or else there’s just no way for us to have any contact with it. Even if you managed to briefly touch objective beauty (somehow, you manage to be right that your living room chair is the world’s most beautiful chair), how would you ever know? What possible abilities would you have to tell the difference between your opinion and some sort of external idea that is “true”?
3- If subjective beauty is true, and objective beauty is untrue, or at least irrelevant and unknowable, then universal beauty must be true. As in, if there isn’t any objective beauty, then everyone’s subjective beauty is equally true. It’s true for you, and that’s it. Maybe a better way of saying it is that everyone’s sense of beauty is only true for them, and therefore outside of yourself, your opinion has no more meaning than anyone else’s. Therefore, you have to acknowledge that, except for your own personal tastes, anything that anyone thinks is beautiful is as true a statement of beauty as any of your feelings on the matter. If that’s true, then you have to conclude that everything is equally beautiful, except in terms of your personal opinion. The guy who selected which design New York City was going to use for its garbage cans might very well have thought it was the most beautiful garbage can around, or even the most beautiful possible? How can you be sure he didn’t?
So, everything you think is beautiful, is. And everything you think isn’t, someone else might think is, and so is. So no matter what, you, and everyone around you, is right. And I think that’s beautiful.
First of all, take your pick- I’m going to use beauty as the example, but it applies just as well to any of the others. The question is subjective vs. objective
1- Subjective beauty is true. Right? I mean, if I think something or someone is beautiful, it’s true for me. There’s no real questioning of that. You might disagree, but you have to acknowledge that my subjective opinion is true for me.
2- Objective beauty is untrue. Or at least, unknowable. Either there is no such thing as objective beauty (do you think there’s actually an objective answer as to who is the most beautiful woman in the world?), or else there’s just no way for us to have any contact with it. Even if you managed to briefly touch objective beauty (somehow, you manage to be right that your living room chair is the world’s most beautiful chair), how would you ever know? What possible abilities would you have to tell the difference between your opinion and some sort of external idea that is “true”?
3- If subjective beauty is true, and objective beauty is untrue, or at least irrelevant and unknowable, then universal beauty must be true. As in, if there isn’t any objective beauty, then everyone’s subjective beauty is equally true. It’s true for you, and that’s it. Maybe a better way of saying it is that everyone’s sense of beauty is only true for them, and therefore outside of yourself, your opinion has no more meaning than anyone else’s. Therefore, you have to acknowledge that, except for your own personal tastes, anything that anyone thinks is beautiful is as true a statement of beauty as any of your feelings on the matter. If that’s true, then you have to conclude that everything is equally beautiful, except in terms of your personal opinion. The guy who selected which design New York City was going to use for its garbage cans might very well have thought it was the most beautiful garbage can around, or even the most beautiful possible? How can you be sure he didn’t?
So, everything you think is beautiful, is. And everything you think isn’t, someone else might think is, and so is. So no matter what, you, and everyone around you, is right. And I think that’s beautiful.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Two Steps forward, Take a break?
The problem with technology is that progress means we make it easier and faster to do something that used to be more difficult.
The problem is that this means we get lazier in relation to each of these things.
The problem is that we still have to do them, we just have to spend so much less time and energy doing them.
And then they don't really matter anymore.
And then what are we left spending our time doing?
The problem is that this means we get lazier in relation to each of these things.
The problem is that we still have to do them, we just have to spend so much less time and energy doing them.
And then they don't really matter anymore.
And then what are we left spending our time doing?
Monday, October 20, 2008
High Fructose Corn Syrup, Response
1 comments:
-
The risk of becoming obese is 40% higher among children who have one obese parent. For this reason it is extremely important to educate children to eat correctly since the first years of life. All these consequences must spur parents to improve and make children’s lifestyle more healthy. http://www.phentermine-effects.com
He was traveling for work in the outskirts of Denver, didn't no the area, and decided to go to some fast-food place for lunch. While he was there, he saw a family come in- a mother, grandmother, and three daughters, aged 7, 11, and 15 (or so). The mother ordered the same super-sized (or equivalent) meal for each of them. And when neither the 7 nor 11 year-olds could finish the meals, the mom said to finish their food because there are starving people in africa who would do anything for so much food. The moral being, if you don't finish all of your food, you are wasteful and insulting all of the people who don't have the opportunities that they have.
It kind of struck me when he said this, that I remember hearing that phrase when I was a kid. That seems to be just one of those American parental phrases (or was when I was a kid)- "finish your food, there are starving people in ______________"
I think the ideas that foment obesity in America are much more deep-set than people (or at least I) thought. They go back to America's idea of itself as the land of plenty, the land of wealth. And just as the American Dream has gone from, if I work hard then I can give my children a better life, to, I want and deserve more now without having to do more- so has the American idea of the land of plenty and opportunity turned into the idea of the land of excess and indulgence.
Maybe we're all making each other fatter.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
And in the news today...
As I often do in the mornings, one of my first activities was to check google news. The top three international stories were as follows…
1- McCain needs a big push in the upcoming debate to stop Obama’s momentum.
2- Madonna and Guy Ritchie to announce divorce.
3- Fighting at Thai-Cambodia border kills 2 people.
Really? That was number 2? Subsequent headlines that didn’t make the top three include:
The breakdown of talks between Georgia and Russia (and so possibly more violence)
A drunk man tries to hijack a Turkish plane.
Firefighters’ ongoing struggle to contain the fires burning down LA.
But Madonna trumps all that.
America, Fuck Yeah!!!
1- McCain needs a big push in the upcoming debate to stop Obama’s momentum.
2- Madonna and Guy Ritchie to announce divorce.
3- Fighting at Thai-Cambodia border kills 2 people.
Really? That was number 2? Subsequent headlines that didn’t make the top three include:
The breakdown of talks between Georgia and Russia (and so possibly more violence)
A drunk man tries to hijack a Turkish plane.
Firefighters’ ongoing struggle to contain the fires burning down LA.
But Madonna trumps all that.
America, Fuck Yeah!!!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A Political Phew
So, another presidential debate. And I do agree with what every commentator that I saw subsequently said- that McCain did nothing to change people’s opinions in this debate. Whether you think McCain or Obama won, McCain, being behind, had to achieve a goal that he didn’t reach.
But, more than that, it was refreshing to hear the two of them talk because neither one is an idiot. At least they both have a good command of the English language, and an comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. So much better than a monkey for president! For me it’s genuinely a relief to have two actual candidates (alright, alright, with the exception of Sarah Palin!).
And I do more agree with Obama, and I do really think that, for where we are right now domestically and internationally, what he offers in terms of hope and change is truly necessary- but I will say here that I think John McCain would make a good president. I don’t think for what we need right now, but generally a smart passionate qualified candidate.
In politics, everyone keeps talking about “crossing the aisle” and being “bi-partisan” like it’s the impressive few that manage to do it. Well, besides the fact that this should be the norm (it seems to be part of the job description, in fact), really “crossing the aisle” (which is a really weird quasi-wedding reference, by the way) means respecting qualified people and their ideas. As long as people say my candidate is great and yours is terrible, there’s not really going to be any actual debate or dialogue. Saying I cross party lines but people on the other side don’t know what they’re talking about is somewhat contradictory.
So I will say what most of my friends won’t- McCain is a qualified candidate. I’m not gonna vote for him, I hope you don’t, and I really hope he doesn’t win, but at least the choice this year is between legitimate candidates.
But, more than that, it was refreshing to hear the two of them talk because neither one is an idiot. At least they both have a good command of the English language, and an comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. So much better than a monkey for president! For me it’s genuinely a relief to have two actual candidates (alright, alright, with the exception of Sarah Palin!).
And I do more agree with Obama, and I do really think that, for where we are right now domestically and internationally, what he offers in terms of hope and change is truly necessary- but I will say here that I think John McCain would make a good president. I don’t think for what we need right now, but generally a smart passionate qualified candidate.
In politics, everyone keeps talking about “crossing the aisle” and being “bi-partisan” like it’s the impressive few that manage to do it. Well, besides the fact that this should be the norm (it seems to be part of the job description, in fact), really “crossing the aisle” (which is a really weird quasi-wedding reference, by the way) means respecting qualified people and their ideas. As long as people say my candidate is great and yours is terrible, there’s not really going to be any actual debate or dialogue. Saying I cross party lines but people on the other side don’t know what they’re talking about is somewhat contradictory.
So I will say what most of my friends won’t- McCain is a qualified candidate. I’m not gonna vote for him, I hope you don’t, and I really hope he doesn’t win, but at least the choice this year is between legitimate candidates.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Water-Boarding, The Follow-Up
So, the follow-up to my water-boarding experience. After we did the water-boarding for the video, people immediately started responding to it. As a result, the director of the music video we did for “Sacred Cows” called me up and said that we had to shoot more water-boarding footage, since we only had one real scene of it, and it was all from five feet away or so. We needed a few close-ups of it.
Well, I wasn’t exactly excited, but I understood her point and agreed to do it. After all, in spite of your very unpleasant the experience was, I had gone through it, was fine afterwards, and so how bad could doing it again be?
So, a few days later, I found myself driving over to her place around dusk to shoot more water-boarding. And my entire body was shaking. My hands just wouldn’t stop. I kept telling myself to get some control. I mean, I had already done it once, I had survived functionally, and I’m a martial artist, which is all about control of the mind over the body. And no matter what I just couldn’t stop the shaking.
I guess no matter how much my mind had gotten over the experience, my body was not ok with doing it again. No matter what I thought.
Well, I wasn’t exactly excited, but I understood her point and agreed to do it. After all, in spite of your very unpleasant the experience was, I had gone through it, was fine afterwards, and so how bad could doing it again be?
So, a few days later, I found myself driving over to her place around dusk to shoot more water-boarding. And my entire body was shaking. My hands just wouldn’t stop. I kept telling myself to get some control. I mean, I had already done it once, I had survived functionally, and I’m a martial artist, which is all about control of the mind over the body. And no matter what I just couldn’t stop the shaking.
I guess no matter how much my mind had gotten over the experience, my body was not ok with doing it again. No matter what I thought.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
My World Issue
The main cause worth fighting?
World Stupidity. Collective stupidity, which breeds fear, violence, and apathy, is the main cause of almost all the shit I think needs to change with the world. To gain self-knowledge is to gain knowledge about how everything else should fit into the world. And if you don't have an understanding of yourself and your values, you are extremely susceptible to someone else convincing you to just follow them, to buy into someone else's dupe. The people in control don't want to change (why would they, they're in control?) and the people who aren't have been convinced that someone else is supposed to be taking care of stuff. And the people who acknowledge this situation either turn away in disgust or respond with violence. The number of people I know who deeply care but expect someone else to do something about it while they sit at home and complain staggers me. Instead of doing something, people sit down at a computer and write some stupid blog. whoops/.
World Stupidity. Collective stupidity, which breeds fear, violence, and apathy, is the main cause of almost all the shit I think needs to change with the world. To gain self-knowledge is to gain knowledge about how everything else should fit into the world. And if you don't have an understanding of yourself and your values, you are extremely susceptible to someone else convincing you to just follow them, to buy into someone else's dupe. The people in control don't want to change (why would they, they're in control?) and the people who aren't have been convinced that someone else is supposed to be taking care of stuff. And the people who acknowledge this situation either turn away in disgust or respond with violence. The number of people I know who deeply care but expect someone else to do something about it while they sit at home and complain staggers me. Instead of doing something, people sit down at a computer and write some stupid blog. whoops/.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
We walk alone, but not lonely
-
The hardest step in a thousand mile journey is the first. You should let your readers know that the journey doesn't have to begin alone. That's why some really like your music. The reason for the journey is often the same. Your songs reinforce that. The encouragement that solitude is not solipsism. Though at some point in the journey, you and I know it must inevitably be walked alone.
I just couldn't agree more. It's easy to push the idea of how much we all need to make this journey ourselves, and forget how difficult, how scary a process it is. But there are a lot of people trying to do this, and it's in everyone's interest in this process to help each other out. We all must walk alone, but that doesn't mean that people can't help us along the way, even if it's just telling us that it's worth our time and that the issues faced while doing it are things that other people have gone through.
It is such a tragedy to me that the way so much is structured in our society, it is so difficult to make this first step. So much is pushing in the opposite direction. You need to not only have a desire and an inclination to find your own path, you must also have the strength to go in the opposite direction, the will to say yes when everyone else says no.
Some people will be able to do this process no matter what. Some people will never have any interest in this process. But there are so many people who could do it if they had the chance, if there wasn't so much pressure to stay where you are.
We all walk alone, and the moment we realize that, we can all share in it together.
Thanks for understanding, Bernie
A Political Dupe
While we all know that to some extent we are being duped by the powers that be (politicians, media, etc.), it recently occured to me that maybe one of the ways is in the very myth that is perpetrated about what a politician actually is.
In spite of all the controversy, corruption, back-stabbing and other stuff that goes on in politics, on some level we are still presented with the image that most politicians are smart people who care about the interests of the country. Maybe not more than their own self-interest, but that at least the majority of them are smart and care about how our government works.
That is, until I saw a Daily Show recently in which they interview a representative from a rural section of Georgia (I don't remember the exact area or person's name, but that's not really important). The guy was an absolute idiot. I mean, an unbelievable idiot. That didn't even have to do anything to make him sound funny.
So, I started thinking. What if, rather than most politicians being smart and passionate, most of them are in fact dumb. As in below average intelligence. Because, to be honest, the people I know that have all the qualities I would want in a political leader have absolutely no interest in being in politics, by and large. The intelligence, honest, integrity, broad-mindedness, dedication, and humility (it is called for public servant for a reason) needed, in my mind, to make a great leader, rarely adds up to a person wanting to run for office.
In fact, what I find the most necessary qualities are a bull-headed dedication to follow your team, a willingness to play dirty to ensure that you win, and the ability to pounce when you smell blood. I don't even think intelligence is a necessary quality in a politician. Probably a useful one, probably one that would allow to you to succeed over others, but not a necessary one. And integrity, dedication to the country and its best interests? Pretty clearly not necessary (or no longer necessary).
What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that most politicians are the people who were bullies in high school, or maybe the second- and third-in-command to the main high school bully. People who are used to fighting for their self-interest, bullying others to make their own role more secure, and a willingness to follow whatever keeps them in their rung on the ladder.
I definitely don't mean to say that all politicians are stupid bullies. In fact, I very much think that some of the people currently running for the "Big" office are in fact quite intelligent and qualified (although not all of them). Just that maybe we've all been convinced that politicians are supposed to be noble, smart, and dedicated, and it's just the few that ruin it for the rest. Maybe it's the opposite. It certainly provides an interesting perspective on the whole process.
In spite of all the controversy, corruption, back-stabbing and other stuff that goes on in politics, on some level we are still presented with the image that most politicians are smart people who care about the interests of the country. Maybe not more than their own self-interest, but that at least the majority of them are smart and care about how our government works.
That is, until I saw a Daily Show recently in which they interview a representative from a rural section of Georgia (I don't remember the exact area or person's name, but that's not really important). The guy was an absolute idiot. I mean, an unbelievable idiot. That didn't even have to do anything to make him sound funny.
So, I started thinking. What if, rather than most politicians being smart and passionate, most of them are in fact dumb. As in below average intelligence. Because, to be honest, the people I know that have all the qualities I would want in a political leader have absolutely no interest in being in politics, by and large. The intelligence, honest, integrity, broad-mindedness, dedication, and humility (it is called for public servant for a reason) needed, in my mind, to make a great leader, rarely adds up to a person wanting to run for office.
In fact, what I find the most necessary qualities are a bull-headed dedication to follow your team, a willingness to play dirty to ensure that you win, and the ability to pounce when you smell blood. I don't even think intelligence is a necessary quality in a politician. Probably a useful one, probably one that would allow to you to succeed over others, but not a necessary one. And integrity, dedication to the country and its best interests? Pretty clearly not necessary (or no longer necessary).
What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that most politicians are the people who were bullies in high school, or maybe the second- and third-in-command to the main high school bully. People who are used to fighting for their self-interest, bullying others to make their own role more secure, and a willingness to follow whatever keeps them in their rung on the ladder.
I definitely don't mean to say that all politicians are stupid bullies. In fact, I very much think that some of the people currently running for the "Big" office are in fact quite intelligent and qualified (although not all of them). Just that maybe we've all been convinced that politicians are supposed to be noble, smart, and dedicated, and it's just the few that ruin it for the rest. Maybe it's the opposite. It certainly provides an interesting perspective on the whole process.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
High Fructose Corn Syrup, the campaign
I recently saw this tv commercial that just blew my mind.
The commercial opens with two mid-30s/40s moms. One is pouring a drink out of a big jug of purple drink. The other mom watches and then says, “I guess somebody doesn’t care what goes in her children’s bodies.” And the other one says, “What do you mean?” The first mom says, “That drink has high fructose corn syrup in it, you know how bad that is!” The second mom says, “Oh yeah, and what’s so bad about it?” When the first mom stammers, the second mom continues, “That it’s made from corn? That it’s all-natural?”
Then the commercial tells you about it’s website, HFCSfacts.com, telling people to go find out for themselves.
The basic idea of this commercial is, you’ve been told stuff from a bunch of different sources, but do you really understand it? If you don’t, then maybe you’ve been duped. The fallacy of the argument, “if you don’t understand something, then it’s probably a lie,” is such an insulting statement that has gone on in a number of different directions. I’ve heard the same thing about global warming (can YOU prove it? Oh, you don’t have any specific facts? You’ve bought in to the lie of global warming), and a general methodology of republican ad campaigns (does this guy seem too smart? Do you not understand what he’s doing? Come vote for the regular guy, the guy you understand already, the guy you could go have a drink with- sound familiar?).
On a brief sidetrack, why would you want someone to be in a position of leadership over you that you don’t think is smarter than you? If they are, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to be the leader instead? So, anyone feel like they are qualified to be president?
Basically, this whole thing is predicated on the idea that most people don’t really have any information of their own, they get all of it from someone else, so they have no foundation to launch any sort of counter. The pro-HFCS woman didn’t say, “Who is your information from? Mine is from here. Let’s compare.” She said, “You don’t understand your information? Wherever it came from, it must be wrong.”
Go out and find your own information on the subjects you talk about.
So, then, I thought I would research HFCS a little further, and provide some websites for people to look from.
The basic idea, as I’ve seen it, is that there are two main problems with HFSC-
1- HFCS contains a higher percentage of fructose than does sugar, fructose has been proven to be bad for the body in a whole number of ways, some of which include increases hunger and the desire for more fatty and sweet foods. In this way, HFCS as a substance is directly responsible for its health affects.
2- HFCS is not particularly any worse than sugar is as a sweetener. The problem is that it has been used to increase the sweetness of given items. As in, companies have decided to put much more of it in than used to be done with sugar. And, because of its form and ease of use, it can and is used in a number of foods that didn’t use to have anywhere near the same quantity of sweetener before (like bread). In this case, the problem is not HFSC in particular, it’s the amount that it is used and the pervasiveness with which it is used.
There seems to be quite a bit of debate on this subject. Quite a bit of the debate that agrees with point 2 is funded by such groups as the Beverage Institute (go figure). Either way, everyone agrees that the increased amount of sweetener is one of the main causes of American obesity, among other health problems.
Point being, at best (for HFCS), you should avoid goods that contain it because they will be so comparatively sweet that they can lead to health problems. At worst, you should avoid goods that contain it because at least one of the ingredients in it will make you fat, sick, and possibly give you cancer.
Here are some websites.
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n11/abs/oby2003179a.html (an article about the increase in sweetness in our diet)
http://www.hsibaltimore.com/reports/nutrition_cereal.html?gclid=CKHu6-yI1ZUCFQK2Ggod80yjXw (an article from the health sciences institute about the health dangers of high fructose corn syrup in breakfast cereals)
http://www.ehealthforum.com/health/topic117606.html (an article on why HFCS is bad and in fact causal for people with fibromyalgia)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL (an article from the SF Gate that gives a good overview of the health problems)
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/abs/oby2004277a.html (an article from the obesity research journal on how different types of sweetener affect obesity)
And let’s not forget the HFCS website, http://www.hfcsfacts.com
Incidentally, the only scientist referred to on their website, G. Harvey Anderson, has a articles written by and research funded by the beverage institute http://www.beverageinstitute.org
Oh, and for more information on corn's relationship to all of the things we eat, read "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan
The commercial opens with two mid-30s/40s moms. One is pouring a drink out of a big jug of purple drink. The other mom watches and then says, “I guess somebody doesn’t care what goes in her children’s bodies.” And the other one says, “What do you mean?” The first mom says, “That drink has high fructose corn syrup in it, you know how bad that is!” The second mom says, “Oh yeah, and what’s so bad about it?” When the first mom stammers, the second mom continues, “That it’s made from corn? That it’s all-natural?”
Then the commercial tells you about it’s website, HFCSfacts.com, telling people to go find out for themselves.
The basic idea of this commercial is, you’ve been told stuff from a bunch of different sources, but do you really understand it? If you don’t, then maybe you’ve been duped. The fallacy of the argument, “if you don’t understand something, then it’s probably a lie,” is such an insulting statement that has gone on in a number of different directions. I’ve heard the same thing about global warming (can YOU prove it? Oh, you don’t have any specific facts? You’ve bought in to the lie of global warming), and a general methodology of republican ad campaigns (does this guy seem too smart? Do you not understand what he’s doing? Come vote for the regular guy, the guy you understand already, the guy you could go have a drink with- sound familiar?).
On a brief sidetrack, why would you want someone to be in a position of leadership over you that you don’t think is smarter than you? If they are, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to be the leader instead? So, anyone feel like they are qualified to be president?
Basically, this whole thing is predicated on the idea that most people don’t really have any information of their own, they get all of it from someone else, so they have no foundation to launch any sort of counter. The pro-HFCS woman didn’t say, “Who is your information from? Mine is from here. Let’s compare.” She said, “You don’t understand your information? Wherever it came from, it must be wrong.”
Go out and find your own information on the subjects you talk about.
So, then, I thought I would research HFCS a little further, and provide some websites for people to look from.
The basic idea, as I’ve seen it, is that there are two main problems with HFSC-
1- HFCS contains a higher percentage of fructose than does sugar, fructose has been proven to be bad for the body in a whole number of ways, some of which include increases hunger and the desire for more fatty and sweet foods. In this way, HFCS as a substance is directly responsible for its health affects.
2- HFCS is not particularly any worse than sugar is as a sweetener. The problem is that it has been used to increase the sweetness of given items. As in, companies have decided to put much more of it in than used to be done with sugar. And, because of its form and ease of use, it can and is used in a number of foods that didn’t use to have anywhere near the same quantity of sweetener before (like bread). In this case, the problem is not HFSC in particular, it’s the amount that it is used and the pervasiveness with which it is used.
There seems to be quite a bit of debate on this subject. Quite a bit of the debate that agrees with point 2 is funded by such groups as the Beverage Institute (go figure). Either way, everyone agrees that the increased amount of sweetener is one of the main causes of American obesity, among other health problems.
Point being, at best (for HFCS), you should avoid goods that contain it because they will be so comparatively sweet that they can lead to health problems. At worst, you should avoid goods that contain it because at least one of the ingredients in it will make you fat, sick, and possibly give you cancer.
Here are some websites.
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n11/abs/oby2003179a.html (an article about the increase in sweetness in our diet)
http://www.hsibaltimore.com/reports/nutrition_cereal.html?gclid=CKHu6-yI1ZUCFQK2Ggod80yjXw (an article from the health sciences institute about the health dangers of high fructose corn syrup in breakfast cereals)
http://www.ehealthforum.com/health/topic117606.html (an article on why HFCS is bad and in fact causal for people with fibromyalgia)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL (an article from the SF Gate that gives a good overview of the health problems)
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/abs/oby2004277a.html (an article from the obesity research journal on how different types of sweetener affect obesity)
And let’s not forget the HFCS website, http://www.hfcsfacts.com
Incidentally, the only scientist referred to on their website, G. Harvey Anderson, has a articles written by and research funded by the beverage institute http://www.beverageinstitute.org
Oh, and for more information on corn's relationship to all of the things we eat, read "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Clarity, Alabama
So there’s this guy driving down the road in rural Alabama. It’s late at night, and as he drives, he looks over to his right and sees a long run of chain link fence and a sign on it that says:
Alabama State Psychiatric Ward
Well, that kind of flips him out, but he keeps on driving. He only gets a few feet further, though, when he gets a flat tire. He pulls over, gets out and starts to change the tire.
All of the sudden he hears something and turns around. There’s a guy on the other side of the fence, clinging to it, staring at him with wild eyes. And the guy doesn’t speak.
Needless to say, the guy is getting more and more worried. Enough so that his hands are shaking a little, so that when he takes out the lug nuts from the flat tire, he drops them and they fall down a grate.
So now he’s flipping out.
“Oh shit! What do I do now? I’m in the middle of nowhere, next to the Alabama State Psychiatric Ward, there’s this crazy guy starting at me, and I’m stuck without a tire!”
He thinks to himself. As he’s standing there, he hears a voice from behind him.
“You know, you could just take one lug nut off each of the other tires. Then you’d have enough lug nuts on each wheel to drive off. It might not be perfect, but it would certainly be good enough to get to the nearest town and get them replaced.”
The crazy guy says, still standing there with his wild staring eyes, clutching the fence.
“Oh, um, wow, you’re right. That would work. Thanks.”
“Well yeah, I’m crazy, not stupid.”
Alabama State Psychiatric Ward
Well, that kind of flips him out, but he keeps on driving. He only gets a few feet further, though, when he gets a flat tire. He pulls over, gets out and starts to change the tire.
All of the sudden he hears something and turns around. There’s a guy on the other side of the fence, clinging to it, staring at him with wild eyes. And the guy doesn’t speak.
Needless to say, the guy is getting more and more worried. Enough so that his hands are shaking a little, so that when he takes out the lug nuts from the flat tire, he drops them and they fall down a grate.
So now he’s flipping out.
“Oh shit! What do I do now? I’m in the middle of nowhere, next to the Alabama State Psychiatric Ward, there’s this crazy guy starting at me, and I’m stuck without a tire!”
He thinks to himself. As he’s standing there, he hears a voice from behind him.
“You know, you could just take one lug nut off each of the other tires. Then you’d have enough lug nuts on each wheel to drive off. It might not be perfect, but it would certainly be good enough to get to the nearest town and get them replaced.”
The crazy guy says, still standing there with his wild staring eyes, clutching the fence.
“Oh, um, wow, you’re right. That would work. Thanks.”
“Well yeah, I’m crazy, not stupid.”
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Bloody Revolution of the Soul, Vol 2
It is really interesting to me that a good number of the comments in response to my blogs have been about how what I ask for of people is too difficult, too challenging, or too dangerous.
If you have any interest at all in exploring yourself, learning about yourself, finding your own freedom or happiness, you could you possibly be worried that the process is hard? Of course it's hard! About the most difficult thing you can do in this life. To figure out yourself, when no one gives you time and the sea of opinion is pulling in the opposite direction?
But who ever said life was supposed to be easy? Enjoyable, blissful, wonderful, all this stuff, absolutely, but easy? A cow's life is easy. You walk slow, you chew grass, you shit, you mate, you die. If you're lucky enough to not live in one of those corrals.
But humans? Sorry, but the lot we have given ourselves is the struggle to understand ourselves. To make things easy, to ignore this struggle, is to ignore what defines us as humans. We are aware of ourselves, we know the difference between what does and doesn't make us happy, and we have the ability to figure this out.
Ignorance is not true bliss, it is the equivalent bliss to a drug-induced coma. But bliss that comes from knowledge, understood bliss, well that's a whole other thing. What could be better than saying, "I have understood what true happiness is for me, and I have gone out and gotten it."
And I'm not saying that everyone should just forget everything that they're doing and go out on the road to learn themselves. Everyone has constraints in their lives, and these constraints determine the places in which we have freedom to move. Maybe you can go on a vision quest for a while- good for you. Maybe you can just spend a few hours a week to sort yourself out. What you do is not what matters, trying to figure this out is what matters.
This is the real purpose, the real question of life. So yes, it is a struggle. It is the struggle. It is why Buddha sat for 30 days under a tree, not eating or drinking. It is why Jesus wandered the desert for his 30 days. If you want to get to a further place of understanding yourself, it will take effort. It's just the most worthwhile effort you can take.
If you have any interest at all in exploring yourself, learning about yourself, finding your own freedom or happiness, you could you possibly be worried that the process is hard? Of course it's hard! About the most difficult thing you can do in this life. To figure out yourself, when no one gives you time and the sea of opinion is pulling in the opposite direction?
But who ever said life was supposed to be easy? Enjoyable, blissful, wonderful, all this stuff, absolutely, but easy? A cow's life is easy. You walk slow, you chew grass, you shit, you mate, you die. If you're lucky enough to not live in one of those corrals.
But humans? Sorry, but the lot we have given ourselves is the struggle to understand ourselves. To make things easy, to ignore this struggle, is to ignore what defines us as humans. We are aware of ourselves, we know the difference between what does and doesn't make us happy, and we have the ability to figure this out.
Ignorance is not true bliss, it is the equivalent bliss to a drug-induced coma. But bliss that comes from knowledge, understood bliss, well that's a whole other thing. What could be better than saying, "I have understood what true happiness is for me, and I have gone out and gotten it."
And I'm not saying that everyone should just forget everything that they're doing and go out on the road to learn themselves. Everyone has constraints in their lives, and these constraints determine the places in which we have freedom to move. Maybe you can go on a vision quest for a while- good for you. Maybe you can just spend a few hours a week to sort yourself out. What you do is not what matters, trying to figure this out is what matters.
This is the real purpose, the real question of life. So yes, it is a struggle. It is the struggle. It is why Buddha sat for 30 days under a tree, not eating or drinking. It is why Jesus wandered the desert for his 30 days. If you want to get to a further place of understanding yourself, it will take effort. It's just the most worthwhile effort you can take.
The Bloody Revolution of the Soul
I received a comment to my last blog (freedom response, vol 2) that I found intriguing and thought I'd respond to. And Adrian, please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you.
As I see it, the comment basically says that what I call for is a violent change, an internal revolution of the soul, and that without leadership to guide us, we will fall into an anarchy of the soul, a directionless, violent confusion. That the only beneficial path of internal growth is the golden rule- to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That this path is not loud, is an internal growth between yourself and the universe, and that no one particularly needs to know about your personal process.
Now, this made me think quite a bit, because on one level I agree. Revolutions are bloody, frequently providing no actual change, and that peaceful change sounds beautiful and harmonious.
But does that actually work? Can systematic, positive growth occur without it causing some sort of rupture? I would say probably yes, but in our modern world almost universally no. In an environment entirely conducive to personal growth, an environment encouraging people to push themselves and protecting them when they fall, a so-called "social health care system", yes that would probably be true.
But I don't think we live there. Anyone who feels that there is anything wrong with the direction we are going has to conclude that one of the things we most surely don't have is a society that is conducive to this process. If everything was happy and hunky-dory, I wouldn't be writing this in the first place.
To me the great injustice our society does is to block us from being able to listen to ourselves, to pressure us not to find ourselves, but rather to accept their model. The corporate model of society says that we should all fit into advertising niches. But I say we don't! That no person is just a collection of other people's ideas.
Here's the issue though- with rare exceptions, we have all been brought up in this system. To even allow yourself the time and mental space to really think explore your values is a break with what we've been given.
If we don't revolt against what we've been given, and what we've been given is slavery, then there is no way for us to find freedom.
And not all revolutions are bad. Some have been quite necessary, and have caused positive changes. The American revolution comes to mind. The emancipation of India from the British. The end of apartheid. To name a few. In all these cases, an external force was causing such a constraint on the members of the society that revolution was an appropriate response.
Perhaps, then, revolution can be positive when it is not providing a cycle of who from society is in power, but when it involves revolting against an outside force oppressing a local population. In other words, advertising's pressure on an individual's value system.
I wish that we lived in a world that allowed for peaceful development of the soul. But I don't feel that we do. And, unfortunately, the issues facing humans in the upcoming century have greater implications for all of us and the world as a whole than our problems ever have before. We don't have the luxury of waiting for people to slowly come to their understanding. I genuinely fear that if serious steps aren't taken now, the tide pulling us in a very bad direction will be too great.
We may have to get to an abyss to learn to fly, but if when we get there we haven't taken the time to build any wings, we're probably fucked.
As I see it, the comment basically says that what I call for is a violent change, an internal revolution of the soul, and that without leadership to guide us, we will fall into an anarchy of the soul, a directionless, violent confusion. That the only beneficial path of internal growth is the golden rule- to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That this path is not loud, is an internal growth between yourself and the universe, and that no one particularly needs to know about your personal process.
Now, this made me think quite a bit, because on one level I agree. Revolutions are bloody, frequently providing no actual change, and that peaceful change sounds beautiful and harmonious.
But does that actually work? Can systematic, positive growth occur without it causing some sort of rupture? I would say probably yes, but in our modern world almost universally no. In an environment entirely conducive to personal growth, an environment encouraging people to push themselves and protecting them when they fall, a so-called "social health care system", yes that would probably be true.
But I don't think we live there. Anyone who feels that there is anything wrong with the direction we are going has to conclude that one of the things we most surely don't have is a society that is conducive to this process. If everything was happy and hunky-dory, I wouldn't be writing this in the first place.
To me the great injustice our society does is to block us from being able to listen to ourselves, to pressure us not to find ourselves, but rather to accept their model. The corporate model of society says that we should all fit into advertising niches. But I say we don't! That no person is just a collection of other people's ideas.
Here's the issue though- with rare exceptions, we have all been brought up in this system. To even allow yourself the time and mental space to really think explore your values is a break with what we've been given.
If we don't revolt against what we've been given, and what we've been given is slavery, then there is no way for us to find freedom.
And not all revolutions are bad. Some have been quite necessary, and have caused positive changes. The American revolution comes to mind. The emancipation of India from the British. The end of apartheid. To name a few. In all these cases, an external force was causing such a constraint on the members of the society that revolution was an appropriate response.
Perhaps, then, revolution can be positive when it is not providing a cycle of who from society is in power, but when it involves revolting against an outside force oppressing a local population. In other words, advertising's pressure on an individual's value system.
I wish that we lived in a world that allowed for peaceful development of the soul. But I don't feel that we do. And, unfortunately, the issues facing humans in the upcoming century have greater implications for all of us and the world as a whole than our problems ever have before. We don't have the luxury of waiting for people to slowly come to their understanding. I genuinely fear that if serious steps aren't taken now, the tide pulling us in a very bad direction will be too great.
We may have to get to an abyss to learn to fly, but if when we get there we haven't taken the time to build any wings, we're probably fucked.
-
Andre- you made me think of the sincere challenge you're speaking of. Its contra-intuitive and its not loud.
I think it was Chairman Mao who said in a bolstering response to Marx: "A revolution is not a tea party. It is a violent insurrection where one party overthrows another."
A sick society is a reflection of ailing leaders and weary citizens. It sounds to me like you're calling for everyone to consider an internal revolution. A revolution of the human spirit.
But if history teaches us anything about revolutions, it is bloody and ugly. There always seems to be casualties.
As controversial as it is, Noam Chomsky poignantly remarked of our contemporary age "Terrorism is the voice of the unheard."
But I'm not sure that's where we want to go either with a revolution, externally or internally. Without foundation, without leadership, too many who try alone often are left to conclude at an anarchy of the soul.
You query two main things in your blog entry - 1) perspective ; 2) motivation. With perspective, simplified, it seems you get two different sides on the coin of motivation. Motivation being the real issue- a cost measured in golden rules.
Who is right?
The categorical imperative might be distilled down to the golden rule. Do onto others as you wish the universe might do onto itself. Alone. Yet sensible for everyone in the universe.
Without paradigm and idolatry, without bloody revolutions, quietly making choices, crossing currents, no one knows you are free, except you and the universe.
"Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'Tis the majority
In this, as all, prevails
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,--you're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain."
-Emily Dickinson
Friday, August 22, 2008
A freedom Response, vol 2
It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted in
a profoundly sick society.
-Krishnamurti
To be truly healthy in a sick society would have to be
considered insane? If so, who's right? The person
everyone thinks is insane, or everyone else who might
actually be insane?
a profoundly sick society.
-Krishnamurti
To be truly healthy in a sick society would have to be
considered insane? If so, who's right? The person
everyone thinks is insane, or everyone else who might
actually be insane?
A freedom Response, vol 1
So, I received a few comments about the How's your freedom thing, which I find really interesting and wanted to respond to. I've got a few different responses, so they'll be a few blogs. And at the bottom of this blog is the comment, for reference.
First of all, as I read it, the general point of the comment is that I am equating freedom with happiness, and that to obtain the kind of freedom that I'm talking about requires significant hardship and difficulty. (correct me if I'm wrong).
The first question that comes to mind to me is how do you propose to find happiness if you don't have the ability to find for yourself what you believe or think? Buying into someone else's ideas of how you should live your life sounds like a situation that would make finding out what you want pretty much impossible, almost by definition. If someone else says you need to become an accountant and in your heart of heart you want to work on cars, then if you never follow your own path I don't see how you could ever be happy. And if you never even explore the option, I don't see how you could ever even find out what makes you happy in the first place. Is ignorance really bliss? Or does it just mean living ok enough and not knowing the difference?
Nobody ever said finding out what you care about is easy. And probably, the only way to really do it requires some sacrifice- if it doesn't take effort, will you really be able to appreciate it?
Now, that being said, the whole point of that other blog was that the way our society is built, the set-up is designed to make this path even harder on us. If the structure says follow one of our long list of pre-designed options for life, and we will make things easy, then by definition it's saying try anything else and you're on your own. Can you even imagine what it would be like if society was structured to encourage people to find themselves as opposed to following along. If, to go along with the skiing metaphor, we were provided with universal health care for our falls instead of having to buy our insurance from some insurance company whose sole interest is making money off us?
Look, what it really comes down to is this- what's the purpose of the time you have on this earth? You're going to die, it's not going to be that long from now, in the grand scheme of things, so what are you going to do? And it may be easier to be safe, to take the given road, follow someone else's path, to accept lowest common-denominator happiness. But is it really worth your time? If you only have one chance at all this crap, is it worth spending it on mild?
Well, maybe. But don't you think you should know for yourself? Some people are probably happier safer, and some are probably happier pushing themselves, but neither side will ever know where they fall if they don't take the time to figure it out. It's a lot easier to come back to safe from pushing yourself than to take the step out in the first place.
And there isn't any other way to do it. There is no road map. You built your own as you go. You stumble, you fall, you get up, you learn, you get one step closer to understanding yourself. That's how it's done. It's how we learn to walk when we're babies. In the end, it's the way we really learn anything. And if you want to ensure that you never fall, you must never try to walk. And I don't really want to live in a crib for my entire life.
First of all, as I read it, the general point of the comment is that I am equating freedom with happiness, and that to obtain the kind of freedom that I'm talking about requires significant hardship and difficulty. (correct me if I'm wrong).
The first question that comes to mind to me is how do you propose to find happiness if you don't have the ability to find for yourself what you believe or think? Buying into someone else's ideas of how you should live your life sounds like a situation that would make finding out what you want pretty much impossible, almost by definition. If someone else says you need to become an accountant and in your heart of heart you want to work on cars, then if you never follow your own path I don't see how you could ever be happy. And if you never even explore the option, I don't see how you could ever even find out what makes you happy in the first place. Is ignorance really bliss? Or does it just mean living ok enough and not knowing the difference?
Nobody ever said finding out what you care about is easy. And probably, the only way to really do it requires some sacrifice- if it doesn't take effort, will you really be able to appreciate it?
Now, that being said, the whole point of that other blog was that the way our society is built, the set-up is designed to make this path even harder on us. If the structure says follow one of our long list of pre-designed options for life, and we will make things easy, then by definition it's saying try anything else and you're on your own. Can you even imagine what it would be like if society was structured to encourage people to find themselves as opposed to following along. If, to go along with the skiing metaphor, we were provided with universal health care for our falls instead of having to buy our insurance from some insurance company whose sole interest is making money off us?
Look, what it really comes down to is this- what's the purpose of the time you have on this earth? You're going to die, it's not going to be that long from now, in the grand scheme of things, so what are you going to do? And it may be easier to be safe, to take the given road, follow someone else's path, to accept lowest common-denominator happiness. But is it really worth your time? If you only have one chance at all this crap, is it worth spending it on mild?
Well, maybe. But don't you think you should know for yourself? Some people are probably happier safer, and some are probably happier pushing themselves, but neither side will ever know where they fall if they don't take the time to figure it out. It's a lot easier to come back to safe from pushing yourself than to take the step out in the first place.
And there isn't any other way to do it. There is no road map. You built your own as you go. You stumble, you fall, you get up, you learn, you get one step closer to understanding yourself. That's how it's done. It's how we learn to walk when we're babies. In the end, it's the way we really learn anything. And if you want to ensure that you never fall, you must never try to walk. And I don't really want to live in a crib for my entire life.
-
What you seem to be talking about should be distinguished from Happiness. True FREEDOM might be attained by making conscious choices, through volitions that give ownership over these choices, but that doesn't mean it leads to happiness.
There is a lot of pain and sacrifice that comes with the kind of Freedom you're talking about. The cost of this has tall shadows. And it becomes hard to see straight. Then you have to make more choices. More burdens just to hold onto this Freedom.
There's a steep price to pay to get into this wintery country club of yours. Though its not an exclusive membership, it might as well be. Navigating down these chutes and slopes, the gear, and even the insurance premium one should have if they fall and break their legs going off a jump. Most don't have all of this and you might argue most should not. What happens when there's no medi-vac to chopper your broken self home?
You sound crazy. Just not stupid. That's your problem. You lead people up a mountain, tell them to choose their path down and stick with it. The difference is you have a map. Most peopled don't. And nowhere around your blog do I see a triple black diamond warning sign: Experts Only. Go down at your own risk.
Me, I choose to take the ski-lift back down to the lodge, drink my hot cocoa and hit on some blonde ski-bunnies.
Monday, August 18, 2008
On the lam from Walker, Texas Ranger
I’m a fugitive from Chuck Norris!
That’s right, as of a few days ago, I have the illustrious honor of having a warrant out for my arrest in the beautiful state of Texas. Which means, of course, that I might have Walker, Texas Ranger chasing me down for my crimes. What crimes, you might ask?
Why, the crime of speeding! At the beginning of our tour west, I got a speeding ticket in Texas. I assumed that I had slightly more time than I had and could pay it when I got back to New York. Incorrect- I had two weeks to pay it. My fault, I more than admit. However, the catch is that, in Texas, rather than giving you a late fee the first time you are late with a payment, they immediately put out a warrant for you. So, on this drive back to New York we will be avoiding driving through even the smallest portion of Texas.
It’s good to see the rusty wheels of Justice still spin quickly somewhere!
I’ll pay the ticket.
That’s right, as of a few days ago, I have the illustrious honor of having a warrant out for my arrest in the beautiful state of Texas. Which means, of course, that I might have Walker, Texas Ranger chasing me down for my crimes. What crimes, you might ask?
Why, the crime of speeding! At the beginning of our tour west, I got a speeding ticket in Texas. I assumed that I had slightly more time than I had and could pay it when I got back to New York. Incorrect- I had two weeks to pay it. My fault, I more than admit. However, the catch is that, in Texas, rather than giving you a late fee the first time you are late with a payment, they immediately put out a warrant for you. So, on this drive back to New York we will be avoiding driving through even the smallest portion of Texas.
It’s good to see the rusty wheels of Justice still spin quickly somewhere!
I’ll pay the ticket.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
How Music Can Change the World
To me, the greatest conflict going on in the world at the moment is not a military or political war. It is a cultural war. More and more, people feel as if they have increasingly less effect on their own lives, that huge decisions are being made that they have absolutely zero say in. And there are two main responses to feeling powerless- apathy and violence. To me, most of the problems in the world at the moment can be traced to apathy and violence- if not the causes, then certainly the issues arising with how they are being dealt with. People are getting pissed off, and the people who could do something about it are either looking away or clinging desperately to what makes them feel safe. And this is one of the few issues that I feel music can help the world.
Music can open your eyes to what is going on, not just around you, but inside of you. It can help people realize that they are not powerless, and offer ways in which they can be more powerful in their own lives, as individuals and as groups of people. Music can inspire people to feel passionately about their own lives, and to me this is the beginning of what is required to address the world's major issues- actually being willing to stand up and care about them. Music certainly works this way for me.
Music can open your eyes to what is going on, not just around you, but inside of you. It can help people realize that they are not powerless, and offer ways in which they can be more powerful in their own lives, as individuals and as groups of people. Music can inspire people to feel passionately about their own lives, and to me this is the beginning of what is required to address the world's major issues- actually being willing to stand up and care about them. Music certainly works this way for me.
Monday, August 4, 2008
How's that Freedom Coming?
You know what really pisses me off? The illusion of freedom that we have in this country. Everyone yells about freedom, freedom this, freedom that, freedom haters, freedom lovers, the land of the free, the fight to free the oppressed. But what actually is the freedom we have that is so holy?
To me, most of how it works in America is the confusion of infinite choices with genuine freedom. Just because you can select from a gangantuan list of possible life choices doesn’t mean you have freedom- it means you have the freedom to choose from a list of someone else’s pre-selected categories.
It’s kind of like going down a mountain covered in snow (that’s right, feel my analogy!). There are a whole bunch of chutes that are already dug out. And because they are already dug out, they’re significantly easier than having to dig one yourself. And then everyone behind you is saying, “Go on! Pick the one that suits you best!” So you try to find the one that best fits, and you’re off.
Digging your own chute takes time, energy, and struggle. And it’s even harder if everyone is pushing you to choose one of the already existent ones. But none of them could ever fit anyone completely because we’re all different. And I don’t mean different like I want a blue fence instead of a red one, I mean profoundly, substantially different. Different in how the various pieces of our souls and experiences come together to define who we are at this point in time.
It’s like the general process of turning everything into a chain version of itself. In order to do that, you have to file off the edges, make sure that it fits the needs of more people. In so doing, you ensure that it will fit people less. It will fit more people somewhat, but will not completely fit anyone. So what we lose is how to be really good at something in the name of being better than average at a lot of things.
In this case, what we lose is being really good at life. Satisfaction/happiness/whatever you want to call it, is attainable, but not if you are choosing between an Abercrombie life and an Urban Outiftter’s life. In the end, they’re all the same- slightly inferior versions of a real life.
To me, most of how it works in America is the confusion of infinite choices with genuine freedom. Just because you can select from a gangantuan list of possible life choices doesn’t mean you have freedom- it means you have the freedom to choose from a list of someone else’s pre-selected categories.
It’s kind of like going down a mountain covered in snow (that’s right, feel my analogy!). There are a whole bunch of chutes that are already dug out. And because they are already dug out, they’re significantly easier than having to dig one yourself. And then everyone behind you is saying, “Go on! Pick the one that suits you best!” So you try to find the one that best fits, and you’re off.
Digging your own chute takes time, energy, and struggle. And it’s even harder if everyone is pushing you to choose one of the already existent ones. But none of them could ever fit anyone completely because we’re all different. And I don’t mean different like I want a blue fence instead of a red one, I mean profoundly, substantially different. Different in how the various pieces of our souls and experiences come together to define who we are at this point in time.
It’s like the general process of turning everything into a chain version of itself. In order to do that, you have to file off the edges, make sure that it fits the needs of more people. In so doing, you ensure that it will fit people less. It will fit more people somewhat, but will not completely fit anyone. So what we lose is how to be really good at something in the name of being better than average at a lot of things.
In this case, what we lose is being really good at life. Satisfaction/happiness/whatever you want to call it, is attainable, but not if you are choosing between an Abercrombie life and an Urban Outiftter’s life. In the end, they’re all the same- slightly inferior versions of a real life.
Friday, August 1, 2008
A video experience, water-boarding
So, over this past weekend, we shot a music video for our current single, "Sacred Cows". The song is kind of a call to arms to people to wake up and start living their life with intent, as opposed to drudging through. So, the director (who is a good friend of mine) had the idea of having people doing "normal" activities (eating, sitting, watching tv), while intense things happen around them that they don't respond to. There's more, but I'll save it for the video itself.
A number of the things they are watching, though, involved me getting tortured. Different stuff, again I'll wait, but the thing I really wanted to talk about was that one of the scenes involves me getting water-boarded.
And we all agreed that it would be best if I actually got water-boarded for the experience.
I've talked about this since with a few friends, and we all remarked that, even though we've heard of water-boarding, heard it described as torture, and heard that they do it in Guantanamo, none of us were completely sure what it was. It's amazing to me that, in spite of all the coverage of the controversy over water-boarding that has gone on, very little of it actually includes a description of what it is.
This seems to me a good example of how we are just getting played by the news. This whole debate has been created over water-boarding- is it torture, isn't it, can America do it and retains its credibility, blahblah. It's certainly something that has been brought to people to discuss- should America do it? But how can we reasonably be asked to come to our own conclusion if we don't even know what it is. Then, like in a lot of other circumstances, our responses fall down pre-conceived lines (those who agree with the status quo and those who are against it). The people I expected to said, "We have to do it, the government needs to get answers by whatever means necessary from the terrorists!" And the people I expected said, "This is a violation of human rights! The US cannot condone torture in any context!"
But no one I know said, "This is what water-boarding is, this is what it makes someone feel like, this is why I think we either should or shouldn't do it, understand really what happens."
I can't believe how fucking duped we are. See, if we are allowed to debate as much as we want, but we can only do it in the subjects that someone else picks and with the information someone else provides, that's not much of a free dialogue, now is it?
And we all fall in line- conservatives back the war and the government, liberals rail against the lack of ethics of our actions, and no one really looks at each situation in terms of itself. Because we are encouraged not to.
So, then, this is what water-boarding is- the victim is lain on a downward slope, feet up. A gag is placed in their mouth so that they can't close it. A blindfold is placed over the eyes so that the victim does not know when the water is coming. And then water is poured over the mouth and nose. For usual 5-10 seconds at a time. That's about it.
The thing is, on that downward slope, the water goes right up the wrong direction, both up your mouth and up your nose. Basically, it makes you feel, instantly, like you're drowning. You are immediately gasping for air, and water is going in to whatever you open to get the air from. So you just keep getting more water. And you can't hold your breathe. The water just comes in and comes in.
It's frightening. It's shocking how quickly the basic primal fear of drowning kicks in. I don't think you actually can die from it (unless they kept going long enough that you couldn't hold your breathe and really drowned), but it certainly feels like you can.
And I did it with friends, in about as safe an environment as possible. Everyone else, in fact, was much more flipped out about it than I was. The idea of doing that with an unknown torturer, not knowing how long it would go on, if it would ever stop- well, you get the idea. It was bad enough done safely.
If you don't have the information, you have nothing- you're just a puppet playing a role for or a role against. You want to do something- go out and make sure you've got the information about what you're talking about. And find out what you really think, not what you're supposed to think.
A number of the things they are watching, though, involved me getting tortured. Different stuff, again I'll wait, but the thing I really wanted to talk about was that one of the scenes involves me getting water-boarded.
And we all agreed that it would be best if I actually got water-boarded for the experience.
I've talked about this since with a few friends, and we all remarked that, even though we've heard of water-boarding, heard it described as torture, and heard that they do it in Guantanamo, none of us were completely sure what it was. It's amazing to me that, in spite of all the coverage of the controversy over water-boarding that has gone on, very little of it actually includes a description of what it is.
This seems to me a good example of how we are just getting played by the news. This whole debate has been created over water-boarding- is it torture, isn't it, can America do it and retains its credibility, blahblah. It's certainly something that has been brought to people to discuss- should America do it? But how can we reasonably be asked to come to our own conclusion if we don't even know what it is. Then, like in a lot of other circumstances, our responses fall down pre-conceived lines (those who agree with the status quo and those who are against it). The people I expected to said, "We have to do it, the government needs to get answers by whatever means necessary from the terrorists!" And the people I expected said, "This is a violation of human rights! The US cannot condone torture in any context!"
But no one I know said, "This is what water-boarding is, this is what it makes someone feel like, this is why I think we either should or shouldn't do it, understand really what happens."
I can't believe how fucking duped we are. See, if we are allowed to debate as much as we want, but we can only do it in the subjects that someone else picks and with the information someone else provides, that's not much of a free dialogue, now is it?
And we all fall in line- conservatives back the war and the government, liberals rail against the lack of ethics of our actions, and no one really looks at each situation in terms of itself. Because we are encouraged not to.
So, then, this is what water-boarding is- the victim is lain on a downward slope, feet up. A gag is placed in their mouth so that they can't close it. A blindfold is placed over the eyes so that the victim does not know when the water is coming. And then water is poured over the mouth and nose. For usual 5-10 seconds at a time. That's about it.
The thing is, on that downward slope, the water goes right up the wrong direction, both up your mouth and up your nose. Basically, it makes you feel, instantly, like you're drowning. You are immediately gasping for air, and water is going in to whatever you open to get the air from. So you just keep getting more water. And you can't hold your breathe. The water just comes in and comes in.
It's frightening. It's shocking how quickly the basic primal fear of drowning kicks in. I don't think you actually can die from it (unless they kept going long enough that you couldn't hold your breathe and really drowned), but it certainly feels like you can.
And I did it with friends, in about as safe an environment as possible. Everyone else, in fact, was much more flipped out about it than I was. The idea of doing that with an unknown torturer, not knowing how long it would go on, if it would ever stop- well, you get the idea. It was bad enough done safely.
If you don't have the information, you have nothing- you're just a puppet playing a role for or a role against. You want to do something- go out and make sure you've got the information about what you're talking about. And find out what you really think, not what you're supposed to think.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Progress?
Any technology that is built for the purpose of making life easier has the danger of making us lazy inherently built into it. We get lazier about the things we were trying to do better (or faster) and start getting more hectic about a whole bunch of other things. Text messaging is a great way to speed up organizing plans and other shit, but it breeds this whole world of text-life.
Similarly, we recently were in San franscisco. A couple of the guys were staying with a friend of ours who had an amazing house with not only a balcony, but a pool and a hot tub. We went out one night and picked up this group of girls, bringing them back to our friend's place with promises of alcohol, pools, and hot tubs. One of the girls seemed to have a fun time (she hooked up with the host), but the other two girls, hanging out with a bunch of cool guys with drinks, a balcony, a pool, and a hot tub, decided to sit down and watch mtv. Now, regardless of what you want to do with the people you're with, which is fine, why would you waste your time in such an exciting place watching fucking mtv? Maybe if you spend too much time on facebook you forget how to talk to people in real life.
My point in this is just that technology makes this substantial change in what things you are and aren't doing with your time, what things you are too busy with, and which ones you are lazy about. But it shouldn't be making these choices for you. You can choose whatever combination you want for yourself, but when someone or something else is making that choice for you, there might be a problem.
Similarly, we recently were in San franscisco. A couple of the guys were staying with a friend of ours who had an amazing house with not only a balcony, but a pool and a hot tub. We went out one night and picked up this group of girls, bringing them back to our friend's place with promises of alcohol, pools, and hot tubs. One of the girls seemed to have a fun time (she hooked up with the host), but the other two girls, hanging out with a bunch of cool guys with drinks, a balcony, a pool, and a hot tub, decided to sit down and watch mtv. Now, regardless of what you want to do with the people you're with, which is fine, why would you waste your time in such an exciting place watching fucking mtv? Maybe if you spend too much time on facebook you forget how to talk to people in real life.
My point in this is just that technology makes this substantial change in what things you are and aren't doing with your time, what things you are too busy with, and which ones you are lazy about. But it shouldn't be making these choices for you. You can choose whatever combination you want for yourself, but when someone or something else is making that choice for you, there might be a problem.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Fear of the Unknown
This is what I think about the beginning.
It all goes back to the fear of the unknown. Fear of failure, fear of success, fear of your life being meaningless, fear of the end of the world, it all goes back to this. And it's amazing how much fear plays a part in everything we do. What things do you do to keep from having to think about it?
Fire keeps the dark away. I imagine that for prehistoric man, going to sleep in the darkness with predators all around them must have been terrifying. But fire provides a ring of light, an area that is no longer unknown, it’s visible.
Then we built houses. Now we actually have buildings to keep the unknown out. Not only do we not have to see the darkness, but we have created a physical barrier.
Then we built roads, and developed better means of transportation. We had already created safe havens from the unknown, but we still had to cross the unknown to get from one to another. So, we had to speed up the process of getting through it.
And so on.
Science is basically the process of making the unknown known. The giant furry beast that raises on its hind legs and roars, barring its claws and fangs, is fairly frightening. But the brown bear, which is a vegetarian, can be easily scared off if one makes loud noises, and will only attack if its child is in danger, is a much safer idea. The process of science is basically the quest to make the unknown knowable.
The problem with this whole thing is that we are trying to deal with the fear of the unknown by making everything known. If we understand everything, if there’s no corner left unexplored, then there’s nothing left for us to be scared of. But fear, and especially the fear of the unknown, is a primal experience we will never get rid of. 5 year-olds will always be scared of the darkness when they try to sleep. Adults will always be scared of what will happen when we die. Cause that’s really the great unknown that we’re scared of, isn’t it?
Instead of dealing with the unknown, maybe we should try to deal with the fear. Embrace the fact that we feel fear, and not let it make us run away. Face it, feel it.
There’s a game we used to play called fear of the dark. You walk out into the forest in the darkness and keep walking until you’re too scared to go any further. When you reach that point, you simply stop. You wait until the fear passes over you. When you can, you take the next step. And the next. Eventually the signal is called and everyone returns. What did you learn?
It all goes back to the fear of the unknown. Fear of failure, fear of success, fear of your life being meaningless, fear of the end of the world, it all goes back to this. And it's amazing how much fear plays a part in everything we do. What things do you do to keep from having to think about it?
Fire keeps the dark away. I imagine that for prehistoric man, going to sleep in the darkness with predators all around them must have been terrifying. But fire provides a ring of light, an area that is no longer unknown, it’s visible.
Then we built houses. Now we actually have buildings to keep the unknown out. Not only do we not have to see the darkness, but we have created a physical barrier.
Then we built roads, and developed better means of transportation. We had already created safe havens from the unknown, but we still had to cross the unknown to get from one to another. So, we had to speed up the process of getting through it.
And so on.
Science is basically the process of making the unknown known. The giant furry beast that raises on its hind legs and roars, barring its claws and fangs, is fairly frightening. But the brown bear, which is a vegetarian, can be easily scared off if one makes loud noises, and will only attack if its child is in danger, is a much safer idea. The process of science is basically the quest to make the unknown knowable.
The problem with this whole thing is that we are trying to deal with the fear of the unknown by making everything known. If we understand everything, if there’s no corner left unexplored, then there’s nothing left for us to be scared of. But fear, and especially the fear of the unknown, is a primal experience we will never get rid of. 5 year-olds will always be scared of the darkness when they try to sleep. Adults will always be scared of what will happen when we die. Cause that’s really the great unknown that we’re scared of, isn’t it?
Instead of dealing with the unknown, maybe we should try to deal with the fear. Embrace the fact that we feel fear, and not let it make us run away. Face it, feel it.
There’s a game we used to play called fear of the dark. You walk out into the forest in the darkness and keep walking until you’re too scared to go any further. When you reach that point, you simply stop. You wait until the fear passes over you. When you can, you take the next step. And the next. Eventually the signal is called and everyone returns. What did you learn?
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Sacred Cows
I recently got asked in an interview to write some comments about the meanings and processes of songs from our upcoming album, Urgency. I thought I'd periodically add some of them here.
Here's the one from Sacred Cows....
Sacred Cows
This song is a call to arms to people to find out what matters to you and go for it. The idea of a sacred cow is something, in religion, philosophy, martial arts, whatever, that can no longer be questioned, it must simply be accepted. I first experienced this idea in the context of martial arts (I train and teach Jeet Kune Do). Many martial arts aren't interested in whether or not what they do is effective or useful, they're just interested in maintaining their traditions.
Sacred Cows applies this idea not to an external, but to an internal. What elements of yourself do you just blindly accept and no longer question? Are you living as you'd like to? Are your outlooks on the world your own or ideas you got from other people? Accepting where you are at without question means you will never get anywhere, never grow. We need to build our own rituals, find what matters and is sacred for ourselves, not for other people.
This is one of my favorite songs. I feel like the groove just starts, picks you up, carries you along, and never stops. And Gerard's whammy guitar parts are just great! Quite the call to arms. Also, Leigh is playing 16th notes on the bass for the entire song. He likes to warm up before playing this one.
Here's the one from Sacred Cows....
Sacred Cows
This song is a call to arms to people to find out what matters to you and go for it. The idea of a sacred cow is something, in religion, philosophy, martial arts, whatever, that can no longer be questioned, it must simply be accepted. I first experienced this idea in the context of martial arts (I train and teach Jeet Kune Do). Many martial arts aren't interested in whether or not what they do is effective or useful, they're just interested in maintaining their traditions.
Sacred Cows applies this idea not to an external, but to an internal. What elements of yourself do you just blindly accept and no longer question? Are you living as you'd like to? Are your outlooks on the world your own or ideas you got from other people? Accepting where you are at without question means you will never get anywhere, never grow. We need to build our own rituals, find what matters and is sacred for ourselves, not for other people.
This is one of my favorite songs. I feel like the groove just starts, picks you up, carries you along, and never stops. And Gerard's whammy guitar parts are just great! Quite the call to arms. Also, Leigh is playing 16th notes on the bass for the entire song. He likes to warm up before playing this one.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Starting with a Road Trip
Aiiiieeee!!!!
Some part of me is always screaming out. Restless.
Being on the road both helps and makes it worse. I just got a speeding ticket in Texas. Never fun in a vehicle with NY license plates. The last time I got pulled over in Texas two people got arrested and I spent the day trying to get them out of jail.
Finding out what makes you genuinely happy seems to me be one of the hardest and most worthwhile things you could possibly spend your time doing. I mean, what else is there really? The quest for power? What a waste, you’re going to die. Doctrinal obedience to religious decree? Sorry, but any god who doesn’t want his creations to love themselves and discover happiness is no god that I want. To me, whatever supernatural god-type thing that might be out there would have to measure our lives in terms of how well we explored ourselves and enjoyed the time we’ve had.
The big issue then is how to find what makes you happy. And that one is pretty fucking hard, if not impossible. Forgetting the fact that we all change, that what makes us happy now probably won’t be exactly what we want ten years from now. Think about how much crap in our modern lives tries to force us to believe it knows what we want. Parents, schools, friends, tv, commercials push us to accept this or that view. Have this job, focus on this subject, buy this piece of shit.
I just saw a line of people down an entire block waiting to go into a phone store to buy an iPhone. I mean, I’m sure they’re the coolest thing that has ever happened, but waiting on line for hours for a fucking phone? How did that become such a priority?
The thing is, any of them could be right, Maybe you really should become a doctor, study English, or buy an iPhone. But as long as your reason for doing it is someone else’s, is from someone else, you’ll never understand how it fits in to what you really need. You have to reject what you’ve been told to believe in order to be able to start over and find out what you believe. And it might be the same thing, completely different, or some of both, but at least it will be your reasons.
If you don’t explore your reasons, how can you ever learn any more about yourself? And if you aren’t learning about yourself, you’re not growing, which means you’re dying. And that’s a terrible way to live.
Maybe you can never fully understand what is needed to make you happy. But the pursuit of figuring that out, of figuring yourself out, is probably the most worthwhile thing you can do with your life.
Some part of me is always screaming out. Restless.
Being on the road both helps and makes it worse. I just got a speeding ticket in Texas. Never fun in a vehicle with NY license plates. The last time I got pulled over in Texas two people got arrested and I spent the day trying to get them out of jail.
Finding out what makes you genuinely happy seems to me be one of the hardest and most worthwhile things you could possibly spend your time doing. I mean, what else is there really? The quest for power? What a waste, you’re going to die. Doctrinal obedience to religious decree? Sorry, but any god who doesn’t want his creations to love themselves and discover happiness is no god that I want. To me, whatever supernatural god-type thing that might be out there would have to measure our lives in terms of how well we explored ourselves and enjoyed the time we’ve had.
The big issue then is how to find what makes you happy. And that one is pretty fucking hard, if not impossible. Forgetting the fact that we all change, that what makes us happy now probably won’t be exactly what we want ten years from now. Think about how much crap in our modern lives tries to force us to believe it knows what we want. Parents, schools, friends, tv, commercials push us to accept this or that view. Have this job, focus on this subject, buy this piece of shit.
I just saw a line of people down an entire block waiting to go into a phone store to buy an iPhone. I mean, I’m sure they’re the coolest thing that has ever happened, but waiting on line for hours for a fucking phone? How did that become such a priority?
The thing is, any of them could be right, Maybe you really should become a doctor, study English, or buy an iPhone. But as long as your reason for doing it is someone else’s, is from someone else, you’ll never understand how it fits in to what you really need. You have to reject what you’ve been told to believe in order to be able to start over and find out what you believe. And it might be the same thing, completely different, or some of both, but at least it will be your reasons.
If you don’t explore your reasons, how can you ever learn any more about yourself? And if you aren’t learning about yourself, you’re not growing, which means you’re dying. And that’s a terrible way to live.
Maybe you can never fully understand what is needed to make you happy. But the pursuit of figuring that out, of figuring yourself out, is probably the most worthwhile thing you can do with your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
So, everything you think is beautiful, is. And everything you think isn’t, someone else might think is, and so is. So no matter what, you, and everyone around you, is right. And I think that’s beautiful.
This is only from an objective perspective.
From a subjective perspective, I fucking hate what certain people think is beautiful.