.....slightly exciting but not entirely a fresh/new design build as I'm going to be mostly bound by existing/local/neighbouring buildings but I've got my second new build project coming up. Of course, I'm only going to be knocking up some plans and making a set of elevations to suit the plans but still.... if the site is actually hidden enough, I might get a chance to play!
Let's see how it goes....
TaTaa me loverlies (ahhh.... thanks to james joyce)
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
with great power......
.....on one hand I can understand the want for some things. After all, on one level, living is about having goals and striving to achieve those goals but how impossible can a target be until it really is a fantasy?
If whatever it is we dream about is so far beyond our grasp, what purpose does it seve to continue to think of it? If that thing is unatainable, why go through all of the stress and strain of not having that thing? Even if we know that it is 100% out of our hands, what then? Do we continue trying to maybe get that little bit closer to the goal or just let it go and give up? What then? If giving up is the only real option, should we still be thinking of that goal or truly let it go?
Does letting go = Giving up?
If it does, then what then for having goals?
Why do we chose the goals that we do?
Is it to give us an excuse to wallow?
Is it really to make us better or just an excuse for failure?
Or is it once again, a way of not having to take responsiblity for the things in your life? After all, if something is beyond your grasp, it's not your fault, right?
Not exactly realted but in a similar theme;
As they said in a film, a favoutite of mine.
"Everybody's coming back to take stock of their lives. You know what I say? Leave your livestock alone"
If whatever it is we dream about is so far beyond our grasp, what purpose does it seve to continue to think of it? If that thing is unatainable, why go through all of the stress and strain of not having that thing? Even if we know that it is 100% out of our hands, what then? Do we continue trying to maybe get that little bit closer to the goal or just let it go and give up? What then? If giving up is the only real option, should we still be thinking of that goal or truly let it go?
Does letting go = Giving up?
If it does, then what then for having goals?
Why do we chose the goals that we do?
Is it to give us an excuse to wallow?
Is it really to make us better or just an excuse for failure?
Or is it once again, a way of not having to take responsiblity for the things in your life? After all, if something is beyond your grasp, it's not your fault, right?
Not exactly realted but in a similar theme;
As they said in a film, a favoutite of mine.
"Everybody's coming back to take stock of their lives. You know what I say? Leave your livestock alone"
Sunday, June 25, 2006
****update****
...ok, I'm now stuck in a rather strange place.
On the one hand, I am more or less 100% sure that the trainers I bought are less than 100% genuine (assuming that my list of official numbers is accurate). The only thing is, on a like for like comparison, they are exactly the same as a real from the store Uk shoe right down to the text on the insides of the strips, the colours on the sole, the sole unit etc etc. OK, there are a few differences but I've noticed that the genuine shoes also have several differences depending on size and colourway (i.e different sole patterns, different swoosh tick, different sole (kids/adults).
As a whole, the trainers I have display the correct details according to itself
(i.e colour detail for the main colour/detail colour, correct sole detail for the size, correct detail colour for the trim colour).
From the looks of it, it is an amalgamation of two different existing colour schemes.
I ahve a sneaking suspicion that it is a factory shoe made without consent from Nike using their molds and patterns. As it is, and from the 10 odd jogging/running miles that I've put into them, they are made to the same standard as the originals and don't look to be likely to fall apart anytime soon, despite the possible weakness in a counterfeit 360 air sole. In fact, going by some of the bad examples of genuine early edition trainers I ahve, this pair is easily better made and finished than they are/were.
So what now?
Do I report the shoes (still waiting on a reply from Nike first...) as being fake and see what happens? Or just leave it and wear them into the dirt as i had intended anyway and save myself the hassle?
I know I said i was going to use this as an E-Bay test but I never expected the shoe to be made so well as I have already seen some pretty shockingly bad counterfeits.
Decisions Decisons.
What do you think?
monkey out (scratching his head)
On the one hand, I am more or less 100% sure that the trainers I bought are less than 100% genuine (assuming that my list of official numbers is accurate). The only thing is, on a like for like comparison, they are exactly the same as a real from the store Uk shoe right down to the text on the insides of the strips, the colours on the sole, the sole unit etc etc. OK, there are a few differences but I've noticed that the genuine shoes also have several differences depending on size and colourway (i.e different sole patterns, different swoosh tick, different sole (kids/adults).
As a whole, the trainers I have display the correct details according to itself
(i.e colour detail for the main colour/detail colour, correct sole detail for the size, correct detail colour for the trim colour).
From the looks of it, it is an amalgamation of two different existing colour schemes.
I ahve a sneaking suspicion that it is a factory shoe made without consent from Nike using their molds and patterns. As it is, and from the 10 odd jogging/running miles that I've put into them, they are made to the same standard as the originals and don't look to be likely to fall apart anytime soon, despite the possible weakness in a counterfeit 360 air sole. In fact, going by some of the bad examples of genuine early edition trainers I ahve, this pair is easily better made and finished than they are/were.
So what now?
Do I report the shoes (still waiting on a reply from Nike first...) as being fake and see what happens? Or just leave it and wear them into the dirt as i had intended anyway and save myself the hassle?
I know I said i was going to use this as an E-Bay test but I never expected the shoe to be made so well as I have already seen some pretty shockingly bad counterfeits.
Decisions Decisons.
What do you think?
monkey out (scratching his head)
Thursday, June 22, 2006
WTF?!?
.....i was on a break from the office and was making my way to the local McD (yes yes, still on that healthy (running) / unhealthy (junk food) streak). Upon reaching the counter and having been greated by a rather cute girl with a cracking smile, I asked for my usual "vanilla shake to go" (as they do in the adverts) when I was told, to my absolute horror, that they were out of vanilla..... and chocolate.....
Ugh.... never have I had something as sickly and as sweet as a McD banana Milkshake.
On my way back to the office, I was then approached by a rather scary looking thin man in a suit. My first sign that something was wrong was when I/we made eye contact. I had spotted him from afar and was just watching him as I neared and I saw that he was approaching other people who customarily avoided/ignored him. It was then, on rejection from another passer by when his gaze found mine.
As I got nearer, he walked a couple of paces towards me and when in sufficient distance, he opened his mouth and asked:
"have you had an accident?"
WTF?!?
At the time, when I first heard this, I was wondering if that was a question or a round-about offer. It took me a few seconds to twig what he was actually asking/doing but when I did, I was going to inform him that McD was out of vanilla AND chocolate milkshake That was dismissed very quickly by myself as I figured that he probably doesn't fall under the catagory of "accidents" and he probably wouldn't be interested (unless of course he also had a craving for milkshake of the vanilla or chocolate variety).
Mucho Bizzaro?
Too sunny to care....
Ugh.... never have I had something as sickly and as sweet as a McD banana Milkshake.
On my way back to the office, I was then approached by a rather scary looking thin man in a suit. My first sign that something was wrong was when I/we made eye contact. I had spotted him from afar and was just watching him as I neared and I saw that he was approaching other people who customarily avoided/ignored him. It was then, on rejection from another passer by when his gaze found mine.
As I got nearer, he walked a couple of paces towards me and when in sufficient distance, he opened his mouth and asked:
"have you had an accident?"
WTF?!?
At the time, when I first heard this, I was wondering if that was a question or a round-about offer. It took me a few seconds to twig what he was actually asking/doing but when I did, I was going to inform him that McD was out of vanilla AND chocolate milkshake That was dismissed very quickly by myself as I figured that he probably doesn't fall under the catagory of "accidents" and he probably wouldn't be interested (unless of course he also had a craving for milkshake of the vanilla or chocolate variety).
Mucho Bizzaro?
Too sunny to care....
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
surprise! surprise!
they came today.
talk about quick services.
i'll get some pics of them up later when I have more energy to take photos and upload and post etc etc.... so bear with me for a bit.
On the face of it, they don't look half.
there's a couple of spots of bad glue/joining between sole and main trainer body but all in all, not bad. The shape is correct and the detail is more or less correct with only a slight inconsistancy in the sole but this might be a shoe-size issue.
Of course, it is all still highly suspect, especially whe you check the tongue of the trainer and check the SKU numbers.
The one in the pair i got was 310910-011.
it looks genuine BUT as far as I know, 310910 is not a valid shoe issue number and colour code 011 is the for the standard UK white (red trim) pair. There was also a very obvious bit of "trickery" in that an actual date is printed inside the shoe which I never seen before in all my years of trainer fetishing....
Anyways.
gonna go and look for an all white pair (Decathalon maybe?) to compare.
yes ys... just another excuse for me to buy more trainers.
Laters.
talk about quick services.
i'll get some pics of them up later when I have more energy to take photos and upload and post etc etc.... so bear with me for a bit.
On the face of it, they don't look half.
there's a couple of spots of bad glue/joining between sole and main trainer body but all in all, not bad. The shape is correct and the detail is more or less correct with only a slight inconsistancy in the sole but this might be a shoe-size issue.
Of course, it is all still highly suspect, especially whe you check the tongue of the trainer and check the SKU numbers.
The one in the pair i got was 310910-011.
it looks genuine BUT as far as I know, 310910 is not a valid shoe issue number and colour code 011 is the for the standard UK white (red trim) pair. There was also a very obvious bit of "trickery" in that an actual date is printed inside the shoe which I never seen before in all my years of trainer fetishing....
Anyways.
gonna go and look for an all white pair (Decathalon maybe?) to compare.
yes ys... just another excuse for me to buy more trainers.
Laters.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
for nits and shiggles.....
i've just bought a pair of trainers on E-bay that I suspect to be counterfeit.
why?
Mainly because I was bored but also because I want to see how E-bay deal with my "case" when I tell them of the item I had bought under false advertising and whether or not they (and Paypal which they now own) will honour their buyer protetion and give me my money back.
On the plus side, they're cheap enough that if they turn out to be genuine, then I'll have another pair of shoes that I can run into the dirt in.
Latest news as I get it.
Monkey out....
why?
Mainly because I was bored but also because I want to see how E-bay deal with my "case" when I tell them of the item I had bought under false advertising and whether or not they (and Paypal which they now own) will honour their buyer protetion and give me my money back.
On the plus side, they're cheap enough that if they turn out to be genuine, then I'll have another pair of shoes that I can run into the dirt in.
Latest news as I get it.
Monkey out....
Monday, June 19, 2006
justice.... the wrong way?
you probably all seen the hoo-hah regarding Craig Sweeney and his "lenient" sentencing but what does it all mean? why are they complaining?
At the heart of it, it is about how can someone that has done what he did get away with only having to serve a five odd year sentence. On the face of it, it looks like the courts have made an enormous blunder and indeed, it is the courts that have been geting the flack about it.
As the judge involved pointed out, the sentence is based on guidelines set out by parliament; he was only carrying out his duty and doing it by the book. So is he wrong? As a judge, his duty is to be fair, even in the light of a criminal who has admitted to a crime. To a degree, i understand the anger of the public as I do believe that people who commit a certain type of crime should be punished sufficiently but I am also in firm belief that all criminals should be dealt with in the same manner (in terms of procedure).
The judge should have a set of guidelines which are clear and make sense and be universally applicable. Sentencing shouldn't be arbitary or dependent on how much press the case gets. The judge should be free to what is just and he should be not doing what he thinks is right but what he has to do according to the rules. The judge should be free to decide if someone deserves a reduced sentence or not.
As far as i am aware, the judge in this case did just that so the only thing that is wrong then, is the guidelines and procedures that he has to follow.
The biggest flaw here is the automatic deduction of a third of the sentence that you receive on pleading guilty. On the face of it, this appears to make it easier for criminals to admit to their crimes but is this what we really want? Isn't it the job of the police and the courts and the process to PROVE them guilty anyway? Wouldn't it be better if it was a case that if you plead guilty you might get reduced sentence? Does this actually mean then, that the process is actually flawed? Ask the general public and I'm pretty sure that they would say that it is.
Then again, I have a hard time understanding why some sentences for certain crimes aren't a fixed thing anyway?
Wouldn't it simply be easier to say that crime x gets sentence x with no consessions or deductions for any reason?
Wouldn't that make it more of a deterrent for people to know for a fact that if you do something, you're going to get a fixed sentence if you get caught?
After all, for some crimes, no matter how sorry you are, it doesn't change what you have done and what you are capable of doing.
What also bugs me about this is, once again, how the government has stuck their nose in on the side of the public to chastise the court's decision when it is the governments guidelines that resulted in the sentence and its reductions. Instead of admitting to part of the guilt and admitting to there being a flaw in the system that they set out, they go to pin the blame on the obvious target? Is this what out government really is like?
What happened to being responsible for us?
How can we depend on a government that refuses to accept blame for anything?
I'm also not sure about the recent trend for the sacking of MPs who make mistakes. Wouldn't it be better for them to be kept on to try and fix what went wrong?
Put it this way, if I cocked something up at work, I would fight for the chance to fix what I did wrong. Instead, what happens here is that if you cock something up, you get fired and you don't have to deal with the consequences of what you did.
How is that "just"?
Getting sacked sounds like a harsh punishment but it actually means you don't have to face that mess that you created. Isn't it then just a way of making it easier on the MPs?
"oh, I don't have to worry if I mess up, I'll just get fired, get another job and someone else will have to deal with it"
great.
At the heart of it, it is about how can someone that has done what he did get away with only having to serve a five odd year sentence. On the face of it, it looks like the courts have made an enormous blunder and indeed, it is the courts that have been geting the flack about it.
As the judge involved pointed out, the sentence is based on guidelines set out by parliament; he was only carrying out his duty and doing it by the book. So is he wrong? As a judge, his duty is to be fair, even in the light of a criminal who has admitted to a crime. To a degree, i understand the anger of the public as I do believe that people who commit a certain type of crime should be punished sufficiently but I am also in firm belief that all criminals should be dealt with in the same manner (in terms of procedure).
The judge should have a set of guidelines which are clear and make sense and be universally applicable. Sentencing shouldn't be arbitary or dependent on how much press the case gets. The judge should be free to what is just and he should be not doing what he thinks is right but what he has to do according to the rules. The judge should be free to decide if someone deserves a reduced sentence or not.
As far as i am aware, the judge in this case did just that so the only thing that is wrong then, is the guidelines and procedures that he has to follow.
The biggest flaw here is the automatic deduction of a third of the sentence that you receive on pleading guilty. On the face of it, this appears to make it easier for criminals to admit to their crimes but is this what we really want? Isn't it the job of the police and the courts and the process to PROVE them guilty anyway? Wouldn't it be better if it was a case that if you plead guilty you might get reduced sentence? Does this actually mean then, that the process is actually flawed? Ask the general public and I'm pretty sure that they would say that it is.
Then again, I have a hard time understanding why some sentences for certain crimes aren't a fixed thing anyway?
Wouldn't it simply be easier to say that crime x gets sentence x with no consessions or deductions for any reason?
Wouldn't that make it more of a deterrent for people to know for a fact that if you do something, you're going to get a fixed sentence if you get caught?
After all, for some crimes, no matter how sorry you are, it doesn't change what you have done and what you are capable of doing.
What also bugs me about this is, once again, how the government has stuck their nose in on the side of the public to chastise the court's decision when it is the governments guidelines that resulted in the sentence and its reductions. Instead of admitting to part of the guilt and admitting to there being a flaw in the system that they set out, they go to pin the blame on the obvious target? Is this what out government really is like?
What happened to being responsible for us?
How can we depend on a government that refuses to accept blame for anything?
I'm also not sure about the recent trend for the sacking of MPs who make mistakes. Wouldn't it be better for them to be kept on to try and fix what went wrong?
Put it this way, if I cocked something up at work, I would fight for the chance to fix what I did wrong. Instead, what happens here is that if you cock something up, you get fired and you don't have to deal with the consequences of what you did.
How is that "just"?
Getting sacked sounds like a harsh punishment but it actually means you don't have to face that mess that you created. Isn't it then just a way of making it easier on the MPs?
"oh, I don't have to worry if I mess up, I'll just get fired, get another job and someone else will have to deal with it"
great.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
all by myself...... don't wanna be......
do you know what the most annoying thing about living by yourself is?
when there's a mosquito in the house, there's only ONE person it can feed on.
when there's a mosquito in the house, there's only ONE person it can feed on.
it's a small world after all.....
what an amazing day of football that was.
all in all, it was great day with the matches occupying tv time and a very nice and simple and small bbq dinner, topped off with a classic film
(Carlito's Way if you're interested - one of many that I keep buying from HMV from their 3 for 20 section).
Now this is not by any means a happy romantic film, being a gangster flick and all that but at the heart of it, is a theme about relationships.
The central character has just gotten out of prison and runs into (or perhaps he goes looking for) his old girlfriend, a person that he chose to let go of before he went to prison, to cut off ties to the outside world and in some twisted logical way, make it easier on him. However, on seeing her again, he realises that he's never forgotten about her, nor has how he felt changed. All he did was shovel it under the carpet. The scene when he actually sees her face again illustrates this best as he is simply frozen, captivated by her.
Has that ever happened to you?
Have you ever met/known anyone that for some unknown reason, before you've ever spoken to them, had already gotten to you completely; hook line and sinker (as they say?)
(sorry... this is cliche night)
You can not see them or even speak to them for days, months and sometimes, maybe even years but the moment some kind of contact is made, you are back where you were all of them years ago, standing in a corridoor, looking into a room and just totally captivated by that person.
It is at the same time, the best thing in the world and yet it is also the worst thing in the world.
The best because you may have just met the most wonderful person in the world.
The worst because you might not actually get to meet them....
If you do and it works out, then you are one of the luckiest people on the planet.
So this is for all you love birds out there.
The next time,you are with the person you love, think about the first time you saw them and how you felt then and forget anything bad that might have happened between you.
Not everyone is as lucky as you are.
all in all, it was great day with the matches occupying tv time and a very nice and simple and small bbq dinner, topped off with a classic film
(Carlito's Way if you're interested - one of many that I keep buying from HMV from their 3 for 20 section).
Now this is not by any means a happy romantic film, being a gangster flick and all that but at the heart of it, is a theme about relationships.
The central character has just gotten out of prison and runs into (or perhaps he goes looking for) his old girlfriend, a person that he chose to let go of before he went to prison, to cut off ties to the outside world and in some twisted logical way, make it easier on him. However, on seeing her again, he realises that he's never forgotten about her, nor has how he felt changed. All he did was shovel it under the carpet. The scene when he actually sees her face again illustrates this best as he is simply frozen, captivated by her.
Has that ever happened to you?
Have you ever met/known anyone that for some unknown reason, before you've ever spoken to them, had already gotten to you completely; hook line and sinker (as they say?)
(sorry... this is cliche night)
You can not see them or even speak to them for days, months and sometimes, maybe even years but the moment some kind of contact is made, you are back where you were all of them years ago, standing in a corridoor, looking into a room and just totally captivated by that person.
It is at the same time, the best thing in the world and yet it is also the worst thing in the world.
The best because you may have just met the most wonderful person in the world.
The worst because you might not actually get to meet them....
If you do and it works out, then you are one of the luckiest people on the planet.
So this is for all you love birds out there.
The next time,you are with the person you love, think about the first time you saw them and how you felt then and forget anything bad that might have happened between you.
Not everyone is as lucky as you are.
Friday, June 09, 2006
best things in life are free....
the second best thing are those which come in unlimited supplies.
this is the next target
from the sounds of it, they are a heaven for carnivores offering unlimited bbq for around £20. Might not be for all people but well, you know me.....
At the moment, I am in training.
Beware....
this is the next target
from the sounds of it, they are a heaven for carnivores offering unlimited bbq for around £20. Might not be for all people but well, you know me.....
At the moment, I am in training.
Beware....
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Saturday, June 03, 2006
unrelated
for most of today I have been feeling more than a little well, ill.
As such I have also developed a strong craving for fast food, as I generally do; that desire for salt, easy to bite+chew food, salt, sweet milk-shake, salt, crispy fries, salt and maybe an apple pie, all getting a bit too much for me. This flu, having drained all life and energy from me has resulted in me being more lazy in the cooking stakes than usual and I am fighting every urge to jump in the car and going out to get my fix of unhealthiness.
How-ever, as i sit here, I still find myself actually going through a process of what I would actually like to go and get. The first thought, as always, is to go for the simple and obvious McD, the most known and accesible and consistant of the Three Evils. Only thing is, I can't be certain that they pop into my head first because they are my prefered brand of fast food or simply because they are more easily conjured up in my head because of their advertising campaigns.
Simple fact is, given two burgers side by side, Burger King does do a tastier burger except for some reason, the McD Quarter Pounder has a certain taste, that is it is slightly blander that makes it less characterful and hence easier on the palette and hence easier to eat.
How does that work?
Burger King in my area simply does not make fries that even begins to compare to McD and The McD milkshake is still a sublime creation in my opinion.
The third Evil is of course, That Chicken Shop but as always, night dependent is very hit and miss. I'm sure that they have all sorts of time related throwing away issues (at least i hope they do) but honestly, do you really think that they would ditch chicken that's been in the heater for the past four hours but still looks ok? How many times have you had the craving for the salty, peppery and crispy skin only for it to be a big pile of mushy slop?
In my ill state, my fragile mind cannot handle the disappointment of soggy fried floured chicken skin. Dont even talk about their fries....
Which leads me to the conclusion that in order to fulfill MY needs at this, my time of illness, I really should do the obvious thing which ends up being the one thing that these companies dread; Shop at all three and thus showing my non-loyalty to any of them. Sure it might mean that I am actually a bigger victim to all three but Then again, I would be one customer that all three can count, which on the flip side, means that I am one customer that is more or less un-affiliated to any of them?
Make sense?
or perhaps I am just trying to justify my uncharacteristic urge for junk..... lots of it....
As such I have also developed a strong craving for fast food, as I generally do; that desire for salt, easy to bite+chew food, salt, sweet milk-shake, salt, crispy fries, salt and maybe an apple pie, all getting a bit too much for me. This flu, having drained all life and energy from me has resulted in me being more lazy in the cooking stakes than usual and I am fighting every urge to jump in the car and going out to get my fix of unhealthiness.
How-ever, as i sit here, I still find myself actually going through a process of what I would actually like to go and get. The first thought, as always, is to go for the simple and obvious McD, the most known and accesible and consistant of the Three Evils. Only thing is, I can't be certain that they pop into my head first because they are my prefered brand of fast food or simply because they are more easily conjured up in my head because of their advertising campaigns.
Simple fact is, given two burgers side by side, Burger King does do a tastier burger except for some reason, the McD Quarter Pounder has a certain taste, that is it is slightly blander that makes it less characterful and hence easier on the palette and hence easier to eat.
How does that work?
Burger King in my area simply does not make fries that even begins to compare to McD and The McD milkshake is still a sublime creation in my opinion.
The third Evil is of course, That Chicken Shop but as always, night dependent is very hit and miss. I'm sure that they have all sorts of time related throwing away issues (at least i hope they do) but honestly, do you really think that they would ditch chicken that's been in the heater for the past four hours but still looks ok? How many times have you had the craving for the salty, peppery and crispy skin only for it to be a big pile of mushy slop?
In my ill state, my fragile mind cannot handle the disappointment of soggy fried floured chicken skin. Dont even talk about their fries....
Which leads me to the conclusion that in order to fulfill MY needs at this, my time of illness, I really should do the obvious thing which ends up being the one thing that these companies dread; Shop at all three and thus showing my non-loyalty to any of them. Sure it might mean that I am actually a bigger victim to all three but Then again, I would be one customer that all three can count, which on the flip side, means that I am one customer that is more or less un-affiliated to any of them?
Make sense?
or perhaps I am just trying to justify my uncharacteristic urge for junk..... lots of it....
i should be so lucky luck lucky.....
...simple question:
what is luck?
an off topic thread was started, in a forum I moderate in, entitled "what is and luck" came up and I have to say that I was kinda imperssed by the maturity of some of the answers; in particular one that simply read "luck explains the improbable".
I like it because it is simple and it is objective and without any attachment to anything that may bias the response. Of course, there were still the odd replies along the lines of "bad luck is punishment" which goes into a whole different kettle of fish but on the whole, it was quite good overall.
I'm writing this because once again, the bad luck thread kinda goes a long way to show how different people view the world they live in and the way they exist in the world. Another reply was that "bad luck is the reluctance to accept responsiblity" which shows the direction that I'm going for.
Again, as I mentioned before, too many people seem to want something to blame for their misfortunes and luck is the easiest way of removing yourself from blame. Of course, this is dependent of situation of course but there are rarelt any occasions where something you were part of goes wrong and you didn't paly a part in it's undoing. So why the need to blame something intangible and non-existant?
Is it even slightly unhealthy?
We all have choices for every action at every step along whatever path we are walking. There is never any point where you are forced to do anything, nor is there anything that is truely out of your control. Sure bad things can happen that are genuinely out of your hands (i.e car accidents) but these aren't the events that I am talking about. I am talking about life choices and other things related to work and relationships that we actively take part in; the things that define our lives and ourselves.
You might remember me mentioning honesty to one's self in another post and this is part of what I meant. To progress, you have to take responsibilty for your actions and reflect on them and amaned as neccesary. This is what makes humans above animals; we have the ability to be introspectively reflective and then go beyond ourselves to be better next time. If we spend too much time blaming errors on other people or even something that doesn't exist (such as luck) then where is there space for moving on and improving ourselves?
what is luck?
an off topic thread was started, in a forum I moderate in, entitled "what is and luck" came up and I have to say that I was kinda imperssed by the maturity of some of the answers; in particular one that simply read "luck explains the improbable".
I like it because it is simple and it is objective and without any attachment to anything that may bias the response. Of course, there were still the odd replies along the lines of "bad luck is punishment" which goes into a whole different kettle of fish but on the whole, it was quite good overall.
I'm writing this because once again, the bad luck thread kinda goes a long way to show how different people view the world they live in and the way they exist in the world. Another reply was that "bad luck is the reluctance to accept responsiblity" which shows the direction that I'm going for.
Again, as I mentioned before, too many people seem to want something to blame for their misfortunes and luck is the easiest way of removing yourself from blame. Of course, this is dependent of situation of course but there are rarelt any occasions where something you were part of goes wrong and you didn't paly a part in it's undoing. So why the need to blame something intangible and non-existant?
Is it even slightly unhealthy?
We all have choices for every action at every step along whatever path we are walking. There is never any point where you are forced to do anything, nor is there anything that is truely out of your control. Sure bad things can happen that are genuinely out of your hands (i.e car accidents) but these aren't the events that I am talking about. I am talking about life choices and other things related to work and relationships that we actively take part in; the things that define our lives and ourselves.
You might remember me mentioning honesty to one's self in another post and this is part of what I meant. To progress, you have to take responsibilty for your actions and reflect on them and amaned as neccesary. This is what makes humans above animals; we have the ability to be introspectively reflective and then go beyond ourselves to be better next time. If we spend too much time blaming errors on other people or even something that doesn't exist (such as luck) then where is there space for moving on and improving ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
