...there is a thing that is said in design circles:
"there is no such thing as an original idea"
So what implications does that have on you and me?
Superficially, it means that everything we think is new and improved is merely different. Is that really true? Logic says that it is true only so far as technology makes it true. For example, detergent x might actually better than detergent y only because the newer one has access to new technology. As Audi like's to point out, their new A6 is smarter than the first Lunar Landing put together and let's not even go into how many calculations the ECU of the BMW M5 can do in a second....
Of course, going back to the detergent example; even if detergent x is better, it's still a detergent. It isn't a new way to clean; it is the same, only better because it is different.
So are we really living in a recycled world?
Yes and No.
Yes, we live in a world where everything we think and do has already been thought and done but so what? In my world, everything I experience is going to be new so why does it matter that some other Yeter Puen halfway around the world has already done the things I am about to do?
There is the argument of progression.
If all we do is re-do what is done before, what does it achieve? While it is new to me, to the masses it isn't and is in a way useless. Man's greatest talent is to better himself so to be doing what has been done before is to be stepping into other people's footsteps. To be doing what has been done is to be lazy and to be complacent. It is illusion to oneself of being better than one really is when all we are doing, is being absolutely unoriginal.
So is originality the greatest achievement?
Possibly.
Within context of course.....
An original idea is something that ocurs only once in a blue moon when virgin Manatees serenade Manbou across the pacific as a schoal of Bluefin plays polo against the Bottlenose Dolphins off the African coast.
Unsurprisingly, people seem to be born knowing the importance of originality. Withness the youths' obssession with being "special" and being an "individual". If originality wasn't something to strive for, why would the driving force of society be so focussed on it? Brands spend millions on being something better than the rest; at being original.
So how original are we really?
At the beginning I started with the thought that there is no such thing a an original idea and I stand by that. But again, like I ask so many times, so what?
I have said that the individual is the sum total of past experiences and their influence on our thoughts and actions at any point in time in any situation. It follows that even we are following in what other people have already done, it serves a purpose. Without our own personal experience of those unoriginal deeds, we have no hope of knowing what has already been done. Things do not exist independent of the experience and experience does not exist without the knowledge of the thing. To know he thing, you have to do it. Without doing it you have no knowledge of it.
What seems to be important then, is not to be original but to learn of all the unoriginal things. Only then can we even have hope of having something that while it might not be original, might be a thought less common than others.
The fear here is that we aren't really indivuduals at all. After all, everything we can think of has in all probability already been thought of by someone else and will be thought of by someone else some time in the future and in many other futures. Everything we can know is bound by what we do know and even then, the new things what we discover aren't really new in as much as they already exist, we just haven't put it in words yet. I find it hard to believe that no one else has not done the things I have done and seen the things I have seen. Of course, this is ignoring the important little thing I said earlier; we are the sum of our experiences. That is the saving grace of the possiblity of individuality. It is the exact sequence of our experience that makes us who we are. Add to that the magic unknown quanity that makes us think in the way we do and you have what makes us individual. The trick is to accept things and to not aim to not blindly copy others. To copy without knowledge is to deny yourself of what is really important in that original. To say things because you think that is what people expect you to say is a lie. To do things because you think that is what people expect you to do is a lie.
Copying without knowledge of why you're copying is the real problem.
To know the reasons of that (possible) original is what you should strive to do.
After all, learning is at its basic, copying.
So to be unoriginal is natural.
The challenge is to learn of how unoriginal you are.
Seeing as this is that time of year I guess this is a challenge to myself.
To learn more.
Titled: 19th December 2007
Published: 31st December 2007
Monday, December 31, 2007
today.....
.....
i woke up at around 7:40. At least I think it was 7:40. It was one of those times when you wake up, have about 6 minutes of clarity before succumbing to the warm envelope of darkest sleep. By the time I woke up again it was nearing 12pm where I hit the other end of the awakening spectrum. That is to say when I saw the distinctive blue on black indicating 11:57, I was up.
That isn't to say that I got out of bed in a haze and wandered to the bathroom for my morning wash trying to drag myself out of sleep.
Quite simply; I was up.
Up.
Awake.
In an instant I was the absolute opposite of Asleep.
After the 3 minutes of blood inducing brushing and 45 seconds of equally blood inducing shaving and the 12 and a half minute bad excuse for a shower I was downstairs ready to make a bite to eat. Why was I in such a hurry? No reason. Just wanted to be up and about earlier.
The rest of the day was actually a bit of a let down after the initial tush of activity; just sat around watching telly and playing a bit of Dawn Of War. Listened to a bit more of my recently acquired Chopin collection and ate too many chocolate covered biscuits of various description for my own good. This year Ive decided to open and devour all of them boxes of chocolates and biscuits before they get hidden in various cupboards, never to see the light of another chistmas dawn....
Dinner was another has job of whatever is in the fridge. Mum's ticket to HK was booked for the 10th Jan; just a single mind as she's discovered the joys of buying tickets only when you need them for ultimate flexibilty. It does mean that she won't be around for when my Birthday arrives but that's not really an issue. Besides, only one person has ever really made a point about my birthday and she isn't really talking to me anymore so well.... who cares? Her booking her flight does mean that I have to think about my own trip out there. Really would like to avoid the CNY and Tobes will be going back on 17th Feb so... well, Not much to choose from really. Just got to get around to it.
PS
most of this post is bullshit.
i woke up at around 7:40. At least I think it was 7:40. It was one of those times when you wake up, have about 6 minutes of clarity before succumbing to the warm envelope of darkest sleep. By the time I woke up again it was nearing 12pm where I hit the other end of the awakening spectrum. That is to say when I saw the distinctive blue on black indicating 11:57, I was up.
That isn't to say that I got out of bed in a haze and wandered to the bathroom for my morning wash trying to drag myself out of sleep.
Quite simply; I was up.
Up.
Awake.
In an instant I was the absolute opposite of Asleep.
After the 3 minutes of blood inducing brushing and 45 seconds of equally blood inducing shaving and the 12 and a half minute bad excuse for a shower I was downstairs ready to make a bite to eat. Why was I in such a hurry? No reason. Just wanted to be up and about earlier.
The rest of the day was actually a bit of a let down after the initial tush of activity; just sat around watching telly and playing a bit of Dawn Of War. Listened to a bit more of my recently acquired Chopin collection and ate too many chocolate covered biscuits of various description for my own good. This year Ive decided to open and devour all of them boxes of chocolates and biscuits before they get hidden in various cupboards, never to see the light of another chistmas dawn....
Dinner was another has job of whatever is in the fridge. Mum's ticket to HK was booked for the 10th Jan; just a single mind as she's discovered the joys of buying tickets only when you need them for ultimate flexibilty. It does mean that she won't be around for when my Birthday arrives but that's not really an issue. Besides, only one person has ever really made a point about my birthday and she isn't really talking to me anymore so well.... who cares? Her booking her flight does mean that I have to think about my own trip out there. Really would like to avoid the CNY and Tobes will be going back on 17th Feb so... well, Not much to choose from really. Just got to get around to it.
PS
most of this post is bullshit.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
meaning it
Lately I've been trying to live by a slightly different set of rules.
Those who occasionally are forced to listen to my diatribe will have no doubt heard me use it a much wider context but it is valid non-the-less. What is this new life philosophy I hear you (virtually) cry?
Simple and I have mentioned it here before and well, I stole it from Yoda.....
Do or don't do.
I've cut it short because I don't think it needs the bit about trying.
Actually, if I was being truely pedantic, I should say that what I really mean, is to just mean what you say. If you say you are going to do something, do it. By the same token, if you say you're not going to do something, don't do it. If you like something, say it. If you don't, still say. What matters is that whatever it is, just mean it.
Is it really that hard?
It shouldn't be.
The reason why Lucifer was cast out of Heaven was because he was jealous of Man's Free Will (depending on which story you're reading of course...) so we are all capable of doing exactly what we want, no? It also points to us being responsible for everything we do so if we can't do something that we said we would, there is really no excuse beyond you not really wanting to do that thing in the first place.
The same goes for the things you say.
How often have you heard or have used yourself the following:
"that's not what I meant".
The simple question is then, did they really misunderstand you or did you fail to express yourself properly? Or was it because you liked the sound of what you were saying more than the reality of what you were saying? In this modern age of teen melodrama and soaps, it is a common sympton for people to live for the soundbite to the extent that in their heads, they now have a library of things to say that are not much more than things nabbed from tv shows that were used during some rediculously unbelieveable plotline, along with some guitar song background and some kind of lighting special effect that ends the scene with either a kiss or a lonely figure in a crowd. What this means is that people are more and more moulding their lives and situations to match what they see.
Is this new?
Nope.
It's just more annoying than it used to be because it's gotten to the point when people have stopped thinking about what it is they are saying. Again, this is me talking about the disparity between what is said and what is done. Because of the constant searching for moments to use those soundbites, what is eventually said is meaningless and no longer honest to the person, the moment or the situation. It is shallow beyond shallow and hence a lie of the worst order. Most people lie for a reason. This sort of lie is empty and has no purpose. It exists because of a false reality. It doesn't further anything because it is more often than not a pointless expression/statement. It does nothing and changes nothing. If anything, if it does do something, then it makes things worse. It is a lie that doesn't benefit the liar.
So what's the point I'm making here?
Nothing more than a simple request:
People, think about what you say and don't say it unless you mean it.
Titled: 7th December 2007
Published :30th December 2007
Those who occasionally are forced to listen to my diatribe will have no doubt heard me use it a much wider context but it is valid non-the-less. What is this new life philosophy I hear you (virtually) cry?
Simple and I have mentioned it here before and well, I stole it from Yoda.....
Do or don't do.
I've cut it short because I don't think it needs the bit about trying.
Actually, if I was being truely pedantic, I should say that what I really mean, is to just mean what you say. If you say you are going to do something, do it. By the same token, if you say you're not going to do something, don't do it. If you like something, say it. If you don't, still say. What matters is that whatever it is, just mean it.
Is it really that hard?
It shouldn't be.
The reason why Lucifer was cast out of Heaven was because he was jealous of Man's Free Will (depending on which story you're reading of course...) so we are all capable of doing exactly what we want, no? It also points to us being responsible for everything we do so if we can't do something that we said we would, there is really no excuse beyond you not really wanting to do that thing in the first place.
The same goes for the things you say.
How often have you heard or have used yourself the following:
"that's not what I meant".
The simple question is then, did they really misunderstand you or did you fail to express yourself properly? Or was it because you liked the sound of what you were saying more than the reality of what you were saying? In this modern age of teen melodrama and soaps, it is a common sympton for people to live for the soundbite to the extent that in their heads, they now have a library of things to say that are not much more than things nabbed from tv shows that were used during some rediculously unbelieveable plotline, along with some guitar song background and some kind of lighting special effect that ends the scene with either a kiss or a lonely figure in a crowd. What this means is that people are more and more moulding their lives and situations to match what they see.
Is this new?
Nope.
It's just more annoying than it used to be because it's gotten to the point when people have stopped thinking about what it is they are saying. Again, this is me talking about the disparity between what is said and what is done. Because of the constant searching for moments to use those soundbites, what is eventually said is meaningless and no longer honest to the person, the moment or the situation. It is shallow beyond shallow and hence a lie of the worst order. Most people lie for a reason. This sort of lie is empty and has no purpose. It exists because of a false reality. It doesn't further anything because it is more often than not a pointless expression/statement. It does nothing and changes nothing. If anything, if it does do something, then it makes things worse. It is a lie that doesn't benefit the liar.
So what's the point I'm making here?
Nothing more than a simple request:
People, think about what you say and don't say it unless you mean it.
Titled: 7th December 2007
Published :30th December 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Saturday, December 08, 2007
changing socks
How obsessed are you?
Me?
I'm a Grade One, Premium, Top of the Line Obsessive and almost compulsive collector of things. If I like something, it will stick in my mind and pester me until the day I die. For that reason, I have learnt to maintain a distance from everything I come into contact with or at the very least, learnt feign disinterest but still, the few things that do interest me have always been things that I spend way too much time and money on.
I guess "collector" is a very apt word to describe my traits as I have cupboards full of car related stuff and lord alone knows how much model making junk but despite my weakness, I am at the same time a bit too practical take this to the extreme where I have absolutely no control. I'd like to say that I know when enough is enough because well, that would suggest that I am not an idiot.
You could say that this automatically disqualifies me from being being obsessive compulsive and I'm inclined to agree with you. It doesn't discount that whatever you want to to call me, I am without doubt, someone who falls under the catagory of "addictive personality".
I think that everyone is really.
We all should have something that defines who we are; something that plays such an integral part in our lives that if it were gone, a very big part of us is gone. For me, it is quite simply the basic act of scribbling. I used to say it was drawing but lately, I've found myself doing more than just drawing, instead making up things with words instead of lines and just making things that might be legible and comprehensib;e text or just marks on paper that look like it might be words. I know that most of this is probably just an extension with my drawing fetish but at the same time, I can't help but think that maybe this is a purer expression of my "passion"; I like to make things.
I mentioned the idea of a blank piece of paper in an earlier post and I'd like to go back to this.
Just like Malevich's Black Square, a blank piece of paper is the theoretical Zero Point of creating something. From this anything is possible and every possiblity is down to your interections with that that blank surface. If you are so inclined, you can even alter that surface to make it something more than a flat piece of paper. What you put on that piece of paper is going to depend on your influences and interests. For some it will be a drawing in the traditional sense; marks that represent something. Moving on slightly, those marks don't have to represent anythign and it is just a drawing of something random; it doesn't matter because it is still the act of drawing. For some, it will be words that they put down on paper; words to tell a story, to express or create a feeling or to challenge a thought. For some this might be lines and symbols; be it maths, physics, music, it will be something that is, like words, a language used to express or explain something.
What tangent is this I have wandered off onto?
I have no idea as this wasn't even what I was intending to write about so I'll stop here and move on.....
Obsessions/Passions.
What I typed above is a brief introduction to what I think is the most important part of my being. If you erase it from my life, you really do erase a big chunk of my life. So what is your passion?
I have a friend who doesn't know what she wants to do after her study.
She's currently studying (and nearly ccompleting) her degree in Physics but she has said that she is certain that she won't be persuing any sort of career in it. In fact, she has even more or less said that she's doing it as a her degree because well, without sounding to arrogant, she can. Part of this is certainly down to it being because she is a smart cookie and she can do whatever she sets her mind to doing. The fact that she is forcing her way through a physics degree is testament to her abilities but what does that say about her future? She's is clever enough to be able to do anything academically but because of the ease that things has been, she's never really found the one thing that is important to her as a being. There isn't anything that, if you take away, changes who she is. At least she couldn't think of it. Well, shoes don't count, does it?
So are these things normal then?
I said that I thought everyone has something like this but every now and then, I am reminded of how many people aren't really doing what they want to be doing. There's also the fact that I am aware that lots of people have described me as being a bit obssessed with "things" so perhaps I am just a freak. Or maybe I'm lucky that my obsession is something that I can do without much external interference or without it affecting my life (beyond me disappearing for a week or two while I'm busy painting something...).
I guess the question is; is it healthy?
In all honesty, I have to say no.
There are times when I know I should be doing work but I'm pissing about with a drawing/painting/model but's normal, no? We all do things that we shouldn't, especially when work is the alternative. The point is to just control yourself and don't take it too far. After all Passion does not equal Obsession.
So again and to rephrase the opening;
What is your passion?
Honest answers please and think about what it says about you?
note: this has taken a huge tangent and the title now has no real relevence to what I've eventually written so expect a part 2.
Titled: 23rd November 2007
Published: 8th December 2007
Me?
I'm a Grade One, Premium, Top of the Line Obsessive and almost compulsive collector of things. If I like something, it will stick in my mind and pester me until the day I die. For that reason, I have learnt to maintain a distance from everything I come into contact with or at the very least, learnt feign disinterest but still, the few things that do interest me have always been things that I spend way too much time and money on.
I guess "collector" is a very apt word to describe my traits as I have cupboards full of car related stuff and lord alone knows how much model making junk but despite my weakness, I am at the same time a bit too practical take this to the extreme where I have absolutely no control. I'd like to say that I know when enough is enough because well, that would suggest that I am not an idiot.
You could say that this automatically disqualifies me from being being obsessive compulsive and I'm inclined to agree with you. It doesn't discount that whatever you want to to call me, I am without doubt, someone who falls under the catagory of "addictive personality".
I think that everyone is really.
We all should have something that defines who we are; something that plays such an integral part in our lives that if it were gone, a very big part of us is gone. For me, it is quite simply the basic act of scribbling. I used to say it was drawing but lately, I've found myself doing more than just drawing, instead making up things with words instead of lines and just making things that might be legible and comprehensib;e text or just marks on paper that look like it might be words. I know that most of this is probably just an extension with my drawing fetish but at the same time, I can't help but think that maybe this is a purer expression of my "passion"; I like to make things.
I mentioned the idea of a blank piece of paper in an earlier post and I'd like to go back to this.
Just like Malevich's Black Square, a blank piece of paper is the theoretical Zero Point of creating something. From this anything is possible and every possiblity is down to your interections with that that blank surface. If you are so inclined, you can even alter that surface to make it something more than a flat piece of paper. What you put on that piece of paper is going to depend on your influences and interests. For some it will be a drawing in the traditional sense; marks that represent something. Moving on slightly, those marks don't have to represent anythign and it is just a drawing of something random; it doesn't matter because it is still the act of drawing. For some, it will be words that they put down on paper; words to tell a story, to express or create a feeling or to challenge a thought. For some this might be lines and symbols; be it maths, physics, music, it will be something that is, like words, a language used to express or explain something.
What tangent is this I have wandered off onto?
I have no idea as this wasn't even what I was intending to write about so I'll stop here and move on.....
Obsessions/Passions.
What I typed above is a brief introduction to what I think is the most important part of my being. If you erase it from my life, you really do erase a big chunk of my life. So what is your passion?
I have a friend who doesn't know what she wants to do after her study.
She's currently studying (and nearly ccompleting) her degree in Physics but she has said that she is certain that she won't be persuing any sort of career in it. In fact, she has even more or less said that she's doing it as a her degree because well, without sounding to arrogant, she can. Part of this is certainly down to it being because she is a smart cookie and she can do whatever she sets her mind to doing. The fact that she is forcing her way through a physics degree is testament to her abilities but what does that say about her future? She's is clever enough to be able to do anything academically but because of the ease that things has been, she's never really found the one thing that is important to her as a being. There isn't anything that, if you take away, changes who she is. At least she couldn't think of it. Well, shoes don't count, does it?
So are these things normal then?
I said that I thought everyone has something like this but every now and then, I am reminded of how many people aren't really doing what they want to be doing. There's also the fact that I am aware that lots of people have described me as being a bit obssessed with "things" so perhaps I am just a freak. Or maybe I'm lucky that my obsession is something that I can do without much external interference or without it affecting my life (beyond me disappearing for a week or two while I'm busy painting something...).
I guess the question is; is it healthy?
In all honesty, I have to say no.
There are times when I know I should be doing work but I'm pissing about with a drawing/painting/model but's normal, no? We all do things that we shouldn't, especially when work is the alternative. The point is to just control yourself and don't take it too far. After all Passion does not equal Obsession.
So again and to rephrase the opening;
What is your passion?
Honest answers please and think about what it says about you?
note: this has taken a huge tangent and the title now has no real relevence to what I've eventually written so expect a part 2.
Titled: 23rd November 2007
Published: 8th December 2007
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
...generally being general
What is your number one cop put, spineless, non-commited answer that you hate when taking part in a discussion of any sort?
Here's mine; anything that begins with, or contains a part that has "generally speaking" somewhere in it when making a particular point.
Why?
Because it is next to useless.
What does it even mean? Most of the time it is valid? So does that automatically make it valid for whatever it is you are discussing? OK, perhaps I am being a bit unfair as I do realise that what I am moaning about now, is the modern tendency to avoid commiting yourself to a firm answer for anything; Deliberately Indecisive as it were and giving a general answer is the easiest way to seemingly be taking part in a discussion when in fact, you are offering nothing new.
That's also ignoring that a general answer doesn't help progress any debate as it is by it's nature a response that takes into consideration the average of things; the average being the most likely outcome from a set of many variable outcomes. What that means that the average can actually have within it, both extremes of a debate. The average doesn't negate the existance of all other outcomes.
Just because you are sometimes nice or even nice to just one person doesn't negate the fact that the rest of the time, you might be a shit.
I also see it as the refuge of those who have no opinion, or perhaps a tool to hide their ignorance in the matter at hand but can't decide which is worse. On the one hand, to have no opinion on a matter is no crime in itself because not everyone is interested in all things. How about if that not having an opinion in based on being ignorant of something that perhaps you should know more about? Doesn't that then mean that the "generally" point of argument is a means to mask their ignorance? A pretence of sorts that alludes to them knowing what they're talking about but in fact they don't?
There is a modern disease that has spread which causes people to think that you have to be "nice" all the time. Now this isn't neccessarily a bad thing but the way it seems to have superceded all other common sense is what bugs me.
I have been banned from a martial arts discussion forum because I was deemed to have been an aggressive trouble maker. What did I do that warrented this? I was trying to tell them that the information that another member of that forum was, in short, bollocks. My trying to tell them something that was more true than the rubbish that the other person was saying got me banned. Why? Because they didn't want a bad feeling in the forums so they decided that they rather have what amounts to lies and untruths on their forums than someone who could answer a hell of a lot of their questions.
Nice.
You could put it down to my arrogance I guess but when you have a non chinese speaking person trying to tell me what something in chinese means, I'm sure even you can see why I got more than a little agitated at the lack of common sense in the forum administrators' actions and decisions.
I guess I could've been more diplomatic but what point is there is saying in any other way that someone is wrong or that something they had said was not true, especially if I know the actual truth in the matter?
And once again I've departed from the path I had intended to take so I'll cut this short but I'm sure I'll remember more of the multitudes of threads of thought I have going around my head.
Published: 9th December 2007
Here's mine; anything that begins with, or contains a part that has "generally speaking" somewhere in it when making a particular point.
Why?
Because it is next to useless.
What does it even mean? Most of the time it is valid? So does that automatically make it valid for whatever it is you are discussing? OK, perhaps I am being a bit unfair as I do realise that what I am moaning about now, is the modern tendency to avoid commiting yourself to a firm answer for anything; Deliberately Indecisive as it were and giving a general answer is the easiest way to seemingly be taking part in a discussion when in fact, you are offering nothing new.
That's also ignoring that a general answer doesn't help progress any debate as it is by it's nature a response that takes into consideration the average of things; the average being the most likely outcome from a set of many variable outcomes. What that means that the average can actually have within it, both extremes of a debate. The average doesn't negate the existance of all other outcomes.
Just because you are sometimes nice or even nice to just one person doesn't negate the fact that the rest of the time, you might be a shit.
I also see it as the refuge of those who have no opinion, or perhaps a tool to hide their ignorance in the matter at hand but can't decide which is worse. On the one hand, to have no opinion on a matter is no crime in itself because not everyone is interested in all things. How about if that not having an opinion in based on being ignorant of something that perhaps you should know more about? Doesn't that then mean that the "generally" point of argument is a means to mask their ignorance? A pretence of sorts that alludes to them knowing what they're talking about but in fact they don't?
There is a modern disease that has spread which causes people to think that you have to be "nice" all the time. Now this isn't neccessarily a bad thing but the way it seems to have superceded all other common sense is what bugs me.
I have been banned from a martial arts discussion forum because I was deemed to have been an aggressive trouble maker. What did I do that warrented this? I was trying to tell them that the information that another member of that forum was, in short, bollocks. My trying to tell them something that was more true than the rubbish that the other person was saying got me banned. Why? Because they didn't want a bad feeling in the forums so they decided that they rather have what amounts to lies and untruths on their forums than someone who could answer a hell of a lot of their questions.
Nice.
You could put it down to my arrogance I guess but when you have a non chinese speaking person trying to tell me what something in chinese means, I'm sure even you can see why I got more than a little agitated at the lack of common sense in the forum administrators' actions and decisions.
I guess I could've been more diplomatic but what point is there is saying in any other way that someone is wrong or that something they had said was not true, especially if I know the actual truth in the matter?
And once again I've departed from the path I had intended to take so I'll cut this short but I'm sure I'll remember more of the multitudes of threads of thought I have going around my head.
Published: 9th December 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
.....reflections part 1
Who Are You?
How do I ever truely know that you are the person I think you are?
I know myself.
Well, that is to say, I know myself as far as I can tell from my experience of my thoughts and experiences but how do I know that you are who you say you are?
Ok, at first glances, that isn't very different from what I've been asking lately but I do have a method to this. Let's for a moment ignore any solipsist view of things and look purely at the simplest situation by way of the simplest questions.
How do I know who you are?
Everything that goes towards my forming of an identity for you is generated by your projection of your ideal self. In all but a few cases, there is naturally going to be a disparity between that ideal self and your true self, again ignoring any question of what is self, so how do I, on the outside, know that you are what you say you are? Perhaps more importantly, does it really matter? If my sum total experience of you is that of your ideal self, does the fact that the x% of times when I am not there with you where you are not as you are with me mean that you are not what I think you? If your pretence matches your claims does it matter if you are only like that with me?
Stepping back into the solipsist mind, where nothing exists except in my mind, if my only experience of you is of that pretence, then for all intent purposes, that is you and your existence in my mind. For that matter, it follows that seeing as every experience of you is a singular event, each meeting between you and me is a new one and each encounter creates a new you. In other words, you exist as a series of moments, each moment being a new character with which to refer to but not relate to. Is this the real meaning behind the common saying (or should that be truism?) "people change"?
If each encounter really does create a new you in my mind, should you be so careful about your pretences?
I've said before that I tend to treat everyone based on each moment and I say that without pretence (yes yes, I know...) so why do you feel the need to portray an image of any sort? Why is an image so important? I am not without an image and I have never denied that I have a prefered ideal image of my own so this is a question for myself; why do I carry that image?
I am a person who is comfortable in silence. In fact, I define parts of myself because of my aptitude to stand silence and perhaps even the more extreme examples of nothingness. It is like Painting and drawing and writing. Before you start, you have in front of you a blank piece of paper, a blank canvas or in today's world, a blank screen. There is a pleasing comfort in that perfect emptiness that is hard for one to blemish with what will be imperfect marks. After that initial marking, it will always take a lot of work until it once again becomes something worthy of the ruination of that oh so perfect surface. That is how I feel about nothingness. It is potential to the nth degree, the epitome of possiblities.
So, like I always ask, where does this fit in?
Each encounter creates a new you for me and a new me for you.
Every time we interact, we start from a theoritecal blank canvas. Even if it is not a blank canvas, it is comparable to new paint being slopped over old paint so every time we interact, you have a chance to make better things that went wrong before and perhaps try again in projecting that ideal you. In that respect, it is up to the individual to realise that potential and ultimately to let go of past events. Every time we meet, you are given the opportunity to be someone new and different so why not take that opportunity. Why not actually be different (or should that be better?) instead of just wanting to be different?
You are who you are now.
Who you were then does not exist.
So really, it isn't "live for the now", it is "you live through the now".
published 26th November 2007
How do I ever truely know that you are the person I think you are?
I know myself.
Well, that is to say, I know myself as far as I can tell from my experience of my thoughts and experiences but how do I know that you are who you say you are?
Ok, at first glances, that isn't very different from what I've been asking lately but I do have a method to this. Let's for a moment ignore any solipsist view of things and look purely at the simplest situation by way of the simplest questions.
How do I know who you are?
Everything that goes towards my forming of an identity for you is generated by your projection of your ideal self. In all but a few cases, there is naturally going to be a disparity between that ideal self and your true self, again ignoring any question of what is self, so how do I, on the outside, know that you are what you say you are? Perhaps more importantly, does it really matter? If my sum total experience of you is that of your ideal self, does the fact that the x% of times when I am not there with you where you are not as you are with me mean that you are not what I think you? If your pretence matches your claims does it matter if you are only like that with me?
Stepping back into the solipsist mind, where nothing exists except in my mind, if my only experience of you is of that pretence, then for all intent purposes, that is you and your existence in my mind. For that matter, it follows that seeing as every experience of you is a singular event, each meeting between you and me is a new one and each encounter creates a new you. In other words, you exist as a series of moments, each moment being a new character with which to refer to but not relate to. Is this the real meaning behind the common saying (or should that be truism?) "people change"?
If each encounter really does create a new you in my mind, should you be so careful about your pretences?
I've said before that I tend to treat everyone based on each moment and I say that without pretence (yes yes, I know...) so why do you feel the need to portray an image of any sort? Why is an image so important? I am not without an image and I have never denied that I have a prefered ideal image of my own so this is a question for myself; why do I carry that image?
I am a person who is comfortable in silence. In fact, I define parts of myself because of my aptitude to stand silence and perhaps even the more extreme examples of nothingness. It is like Painting and drawing and writing. Before you start, you have in front of you a blank piece of paper, a blank canvas or in today's world, a blank screen. There is a pleasing comfort in that perfect emptiness that is hard for one to blemish with what will be imperfect marks. After that initial marking, it will always take a lot of work until it once again becomes something worthy of the ruination of that oh so perfect surface. That is how I feel about nothingness. It is potential to the nth degree, the epitome of possiblities.
So, like I always ask, where does this fit in?
Each encounter creates a new you for me and a new me for you.
Every time we interact, we start from a theoritecal blank canvas. Even if it is not a blank canvas, it is comparable to new paint being slopped over old paint so every time we interact, you have a chance to make better things that went wrong before and perhaps try again in projecting that ideal you. In that respect, it is up to the individual to realise that potential and ultimately to let go of past events. Every time we meet, you are given the opportunity to be someone new and different so why not take that opportunity. Why not actually be different (or should that be better?) instead of just wanting to be different?
You are who you are now.
Who you were then does not exist.
So really, it isn't "live for the now", it is "you live through the now".
published 26th November 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
...projections part 2
How do you see yourself?
The obvious follow up question in this little series.
A martial art training buddy of mine once said something that was in all probablility not one of his own sayings but it was so wonderfully apt that it doesn't matter who said it:
"in my head I'm a superhero"
First of all, let's have some context.
As I said, he's a martial art training buddy of mine. He's a karate guy through and through having been inducted into that evil evil cult at a young age and having done the point sparring/non-contact/light-contact tournament thing. We met in a local kung fu/tai chi place that also had an extra side class for training in the BCMAA san shou/kick-boxing rules competition format that I went to for a bit of exercise while I was on my hunt for a new club/class.
Thing is, while he was very educated in his karate and the principles, theories and performance of it, because of his school's chosen competition/tournement format and the resulting emphasis of training in that school, he was woefully prepared for, more or less, full on contact kick-boxing that features in the class that we now both attended. To be fair, the first time I put on the head gear and gloves I was in shock as well and this is in no way a slur on (his) karate or on him. It's just a simple fact that he wasn't prepared. More importantly, he wasn't as prepared as he though he was.
If you ever need an example of intense try this; slip on a pair of 12oz gloves and go 3 x 3 minute rounds with a guy twice your weight.
Anyway, I digress.
My point is this; outside of the sparring environment and indeed, when we're just chilling and "free-styling" some drills and tricks and what-not we can talk the proverbial talk. Anything is possible when you're talking theory and in theory, you can make anything work and defeat anything; hence "in my head I'm a superhero".
Of course that wasn't meant literally. What he meant was that he hadn't really been tested and as such, he doesn't really know what he can do. In theory, after so many years of karate he should be able to at the very least put up some resistance but a more live sparring environment showed that just wasn't the case.
So where does that fit in here?
Honestly? Not sure.
So let's go back to that statement he made:
"in my head I'm a superhero".
The thing I like the most about this is that it has a certain honesty about it.
At the basic level, he acknowledges that he isn't as good as he thought he was and a little deeper, it reveals that he has/had a certain image of himself in his head. What stands out is that it isn't merely that of a "hero" but of a "superhero".
Let's go right to be the beginning:
How do you see yourself?
We all have an image of ourselves in our head.
Like with many things, those that say they do not have some sort of personal image in their head is lying. Even the prototypical "I don't care" is a form of image. Being too laid back to not care how you look is an image. Like before, if you really didn't care, you wouldn't feel the need to make a statement about not caring.
In fact, I would go as far to say that those who preofess to not care how they appear are the most careful about how they appear.
Why?
Well, those who happily relish in their appearance have a simple task; they buy the things that they want to be seen in. As such, this means that they only have to consider the things that they like and whether others share their like for a certain look is of no consequence to them. This is naturally a happy existance as they do what they like and buy what they like and look how they want to look.
On the other hand, those that have chosen the "non-image" as their image have to carefully consider everything they say, they see and wear. Everything has to fit into the "non-image" and considering that most things tend to fall under the covenent of one set image or other, to find something that is just outside of any of those sets is a difficult task.
For example, think of any trainer, shoe, boot or whatever other piece of footwear you can think of and it won't take long for you be able to fit them into a certain catagory.
Let's make it easier by giving examples of shoes.
White Reebok Classics
Nike Air Rifts
Fly London Tape
Campers
Ikon
Caterpillar
Doctor Martens
Converse All Stars
Those are the obvious ones that have been adopted by certain trends and are as such, as much a badge of that trend group as any other part of their wardrobe. The same is true for all of the other related things.
So what's wrong with that?
Not a lot really as well, that's how it's always been since the days of the Mods and Rockers. It's natural for people to want to belong and in a way, it's good for the mind and soul to feel a sense of belonging.
What is wrong is when you refuse to acknowledge being part of a trend and that's where the "non-image" fits in. It is clearly an image which in itself isn't a problem. It is after all, a not so commited version of something like those guys in black who dress the way they do out of their desitre to be "different" and to be an "individual" (ignoring the thousands of others who do the same and who they usually hang out with anyway...).
It is again, a lack of honesty and again, it's a lack of honesty to yourself.
So here's a little bit of homework for you.
Take a look in your room around your things and ask yourself, why do you have those things.
Why do you listen the music that you do, why do you have those pictures on your wall, why do you have those clothes in your wardrobe.
Then ask yourself whether or not you have a certain image you like to portray.
published 25th November 2007
The obvious follow up question in this little series.
A martial art training buddy of mine once said something that was in all probablility not one of his own sayings but it was so wonderfully apt that it doesn't matter who said it:
"in my head I'm a superhero"
First of all, let's have some context.
As I said, he's a martial art training buddy of mine. He's a karate guy through and through having been inducted into that evil evil cult at a young age and having done the point sparring/non-contact/light-contact tournament thing. We met in a local kung fu/tai chi place that also had an extra side class for training in the BCMAA san shou/kick-boxing rules competition format that I went to for a bit of exercise while I was on my hunt for a new club/class.
Thing is, while he was very educated in his karate and the principles, theories and performance of it, because of his school's chosen competition/tournement format and the resulting emphasis of training in that school, he was woefully prepared for, more or less, full on contact kick-boxing that features in the class that we now both attended. To be fair, the first time I put on the head gear and gloves I was in shock as well and this is in no way a slur on (his) karate or on him. It's just a simple fact that he wasn't prepared. More importantly, he wasn't as prepared as he though he was.
If you ever need an example of intense try this; slip on a pair of 12oz gloves and go 3 x 3 minute rounds with a guy twice your weight.
Anyway, I digress.
My point is this; outside of the sparring environment and indeed, when we're just chilling and "free-styling" some drills and tricks and what-not we can talk the proverbial talk. Anything is possible when you're talking theory and in theory, you can make anything work and defeat anything; hence "in my head I'm a superhero".
Of course that wasn't meant literally. What he meant was that he hadn't really been tested and as such, he doesn't really know what he can do. In theory, after so many years of karate he should be able to at the very least put up some resistance but a more live sparring environment showed that just wasn't the case.
So where does that fit in here?
Honestly? Not sure.
So let's go back to that statement he made:
"in my head I'm a superhero".
The thing I like the most about this is that it has a certain honesty about it.
At the basic level, he acknowledges that he isn't as good as he thought he was and a little deeper, it reveals that he has/had a certain image of himself in his head. What stands out is that it isn't merely that of a "hero" but of a "superhero".
Let's go right to be the beginning:
How do you see yourself?
We all have an image of ourselves in our head.
Like with many things, those that say they do not have some sort of personal image in their head is lying. Even the prototypical "I don't care" is a form of image. Being too laid back to not care how you look is an image. Like before, if you really didn't care, you wouldn't feel the need to make a statement about not caring.
In fact, I would go as far to say that those who preofess to not care how they appear are the most careful about how they appear.
Why?
Well, those who happily relish in their appearance have a simple task; they buy the things that they want to be seen in. As such, this means that they only have to consider the things that they like and whether others share their like for a certain look is of no consequence to them. This is naturally a happy existance as they do what they like and buy what they like and look how they want to look.
On the other hand, those that have chosen the "non-image" as their image have to carefully consider everything they say, they see and wear. Everything has to fit into the "non-image" and considering that most things tend to fall under the covenent of one set image or other, to find something that is just outside of any of those sets is a difficult task.
For example, think of any trainer, shoe, boot or whatever other piece of footwear you can think of and it won't take long for you be able to fit them into a certain catagory.
Let's make it easier by giving examples of shoes.
White Reebok Classics
Nike Air Rifts
Fly London Tape
Campers
Ikon
Caterpillar
Doctor Martens
Converse All Stars
Those are the obvious ones that have been adopted by certain trends and are as such, as much a badge of that trend group as any other part of their wardrobe. The same is true for all of the other related things.
So what's wrong with that?
Not a lot really as well, that's how it's always been since the days of the Mods and Rockers. It's natural for people to want to belong and in a way, it's good for the mind and soul to feel a sense of belonging.
What is wrong is when you refuse to acknowledge being part of a trend and that's where the "non-image" fits in. It is clearly an image which in itself isn't a problem. It is after all, a not so commited version of something like those guys in black who dress the way they do out of their desitre to be "different" and to be an "individual" (ignoring the thousands of others who do the same and who they usually hang out with anyway...).
It is again, a lack of honesty and again, it's a lack of honesty to yourself.
So here's a little bit of homework for you.
Take a look in your room around your things and ask yourself, why do you have those things.
Why do you listen the music that you do, why do you have those pictures on your wall, why do you have those clothes in your wardrobe.
Then ask yourself whether or not you have a certain image you like to portray.
published 25th November 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
...projections part 1
How do you see me?
I have been called many things in my life, some good, some not so good. Some names are deserved and some are naturally not but this isn't about me so that's enough of that.
So what is this about then?
Well, this something that relates back to what is quickly turning into an obssession with being honest to ones self. As Bruce Lee had famously said; Honestly Expressing Yourself. It's also quite handy that this takes on the form of those little questions that I so like to ask.
So once again, How do you see me?
See the slight difference?
Everyone judges.
That is the simple truth and those that say they do not are lying.
That's not the point here though so let's get past that and move into what I want to concerntrate on. As I said, everyone judges and according to the proverbial press, everyone does it and completes their judgement within the first 5 mins of meeting someone. So what does that mean?
Obviously I'm not daft enough to believe that the original judgement isn't open to change as people get to know each other but to what extent does this affect things in the long term? Again, I know that this is something that is determined by each each individual and each case but still, you cannot deny that it does ultimately play a part in how you are perceived.
I think perhaps the more interesting thing here isn't how you perceive me but rather why you do so in that manner? In other words, how honest are your percepetions of me? In relation to the discussion, how much of what you see in me, is a reflection of how you see yourself?
In a way, this still the same thing as I was talking about last time about your personal image that you like to project (or did I imagined I'd written that one too?). If you want to be someone who is caring, gentle and kind then naturally, you will see more of the uncaring, ungentle and unkind in others as a result of your wanting or even needing something to validate your desired image.
"oh look, what a bastard he is..."
This in itself opens up more questions for you.
Why do you want to have that image?
What does that say about you?
Do you really know the people around you if you are projecting your own afflictions on them?
The one that matters most to me is this: Why the need?
Let's be honest here.
How often do we really appreciate the things and people around us?
What do we spend more time doing; complaining about others or praising others?
Personally, I am not very good with praises or celebrations. For the most part I find them fake, shallow and generally lacking. That might just be me and the people I know. It could just be that I have high expectations of things and well, having been bitterly disappointed before, I know not to expect too much. Hey, how's that for an example of me projecting myself onto things? And's that's more or less it. I don't expect anything from anyone and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's not I see it is everyone is a selfish bastard; it's just that I don't expect things in a way that has nothing to do with people or individuals. Ok, that's not entirely clear but I don't know how else to explain it.
In the case of people, I don't expect them to be nice, or happy, or bad, or mean. I just tend to take it as it is at that moment. That is how I like to do things. If you say something stupid, then for that moment, you are stupid and I will treat you as that moment deems fit and that is generally how my world works. I have no-preconceived ideas of what you are like because I know that in all probability, I have little clue as to what you are really like and more importantly, what you were like or what you are like sometimes isn't always relevent to the now.
In a way, that is one of the reasons I can't stand people who make grand statements. They take a moment to proclaim something and in most cases, those proclaimations don't match their past or their present actions. They abuse the single moment and end up justifying themselves in these statements that aren't truely honest.
You can stand up and point fingers and say this, this and this about that, that and that but what does it mean if all it was for, was to massage your ego?
Perhaps what you need to do is to get of that stand and take a look at yourself.
Are you honestly describing those people or are you seeing what you want to see?
published date:24th November 2007
I have been called many things in my life, some good, some not so good. Some names are deserved and some are naturally not but this isn't about me so that's enough of that.
So what is this about then?
Well, this something that relates back to what is quickly turning into an obssession with being honest to ones self. As Bruce Lee had famously said; Honestly Expressing Yourself. It's also quite handy that this takes on the form of those little questions that I so like to ask.
So once again, How do you see me?
See the slight difference?
Everyone judges.
That is the simple truth and those that say they do not are lying.
That's not the point here though so let's get past that and move into what I want to concerntrate on. As I said, everyone judges and according to the proverbial press, everyone does it and completes their judgement within the first 5 mins of meeting someone. So what does that mean?
Obviously I'm not daft enough to believe that the original judgement isn't open to change as people get to know each other but to what extent does this affect things in the long term? Again, I know that this is something that is determined by each each individual and each case but still, you cannot deny that it does ultimately play a part in how you are perceived.
I think perhaps the more interesting thing here isn't how you perceive me but rather why you do so in that manner? In other words, how honest are your percepetions of me? In relation to the discussion, how much of what you see in me, is a reflection of how you see yourself?
In a way, this still the same thing as I was talking about last time about your personal image that you like to project (or did I imagined I'd written that one too?). If you want to be someone who is caring, gentle and kind then naturally, you will see more of the uncaring, ungentle and unkind in others as a result of your wanting or even needing something to validate your desired image.
"oh look, what a bastard he is..."
This in itself opens up more questions for you.
Why do you want to have that image?
What does that say about you?
Do you really know the people around you if you are projecting your own afflictions on them?
The one that matters most to me is this: Why the need?
Let's be honest here.
How often do we really appreciate the things and people around us?
What do we spend more time doing; complaining about others or praising others?
Personally, I am not very good with praises or celebrations. For the most part I find them fake, shallow and generally lacking. That might just be me and the people I know. It could just be that I have high expectations of things and well, having been bitterly disappointed before, I know not to expect too much. Hey, how's that for an example of me projecting myself onto things? And's that's more or less it. I don't expect anything from anyone and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's not I see it is everyone is a selfish bastard; it's just that I don't expect things in a way that has nothing to do with people or individuals. Ok, that's not entirely clear but I don't know how else to explain it.
In the case of people, I don't expect them to be nice, or happy, or bad, or mean. I just tend to take it as it is at that moment. That is how I like to do things. If you say something stupid, then for that moment, you are stupid and I will treat you as that moment deems fit and that is generally how my world works. I have no-preconceived ideas of what you are like because I know that in all probability, I have little clue as to what you are really like and more importantly, what you were like or what you are like sometimes isn't always relevent to the now.
In a way, that is one of the reasons I can't stand people who make grand statements. They take a moment to proclaim something and in most cases, those proclaimations don't match their past or their present actions. They abuse the single moment and end up justifying themselves in these statements that aren't truely honest.
You can stand up and point fingers and say this, this and this about that, that and that but what does it mean if all it was for, was to massage your ego?
Perhaps what you need to do is to get of that stand and take a look at yourself.
Are you honestly describing those people or are you seeing what you want to see?
published date:24th November 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
looking back.....
It's been a long time since I made a post about anything but something spurred me today.
Since then I've been looking back at this little blog of mine and I came across a unpublished post that consists of only a title:
whistling when you're scared.
Except I can't for the life of me remember why I wrote that.
Knowing me, it must've been related to something personal in my life or else I would'n thave made a title like that, except going back and cross referencing with what was posted in the other place (around mid February), it still doesn't make sense.
Thoughts?
I have an inkling of what it might be about but can't be sure.
Not liking what that says about me and how important that thing might've really been to me.
Since then I've been looking back at this little blog of mine and I came across a unpublished post that consists of only a title:
whistling when you're scared.
Except I can't for the life of me remember why I wrote that.
Knowing me, it must've been related to something personal in my life or else I would'n thave made a title like that, except going back and cross referencing with what was posted in the other place (around mid February), it still doesn't make sense.
Thoughts?
I have an inkling of what it might be about but can't be sure.
Not liking what that says about me and how important that thing might've really been to me.
response to....
... a post as seen here.
justified or rationalised?
there is fine between both and they are both very similar in many ways. The difference though, is the frame of reference. To be justified, there is a a reference to an acceptabilty. To be rationalised is to find an excuse for the action.
You can say that one refers to what is right for the situation and the other searches for a reason to be right in the situation.
I think the biggest difference between you and me is that you like to make statements whereas I like to ask questions. The problem I see in making statements is that too often, they are blinded by their own purpose and let's not forget, the point of any statement is to make a point and hence have an ulterior purpose. The best way to truely understand the point of the statement is to question it. Statements tend to be a result of a thought process, something that follows a path focused by the original intent. As such, often, the one making the statement only sees his own goal and forgets, or perhaps doesn't quite see, the other possible interpretations of the statement. That is why you tend to see deeper into someone by the things they make statements about and it ranges from all levels of statements, from the small ones said in slight to the ones proclaiming a "truth".
I am a perfectionist.
Some people can't handle being honest.
I prefer to do it the old fashioned way.
Three statements said by a great many people but three statements that say so much about them who say it.
So where does the humble question come into this?
Let's start with the most obvious and most powerful one; Why?
At the most basic level, you have to wonder why one would make statements about themselves?
Psychologists and Philosophers will wax on about individuals' needs to be part of a group, to have things that they can use to identify themselves with. To these people, these statements are things which they use to define who they are, in essence, a badge.
Is there anything wrong with this?
In short, no.
I am a firm believer in that we as individuals do not exist.
We only really exist when we interact with the things (and people) around us. OK, that's not new and it's certainly not something I thought up by myself. To be honest, I can't even remember where that comes from. At a guess, it's either Heidigger or Cant or maybe even Barthes but that's not the point. The point is that it makes sense to me. If I only really exist when I interact with people, then the simple statement is merely a tool in that interaction.
I tell you what I like and what I am like and you'll understand me better.
Makes sense, no?
It all falls apart though, when one starts to lie and to deceive.
Obvious really.
Except it isn't that simple. I've said earlier that I believe that the individual (as far as one can be...) is smart. We aren't often fooled by lies. If someone says he is something he is not, then it is more often than not blatently obvious. Confucius pointed out that the wise man doesn't tell others he is wise, rather that others tell him he is wise because he is.
That is something else I believe to be true.
That is of course only taking into consideration, lies that are told to others to deceive. How about lies that are based on ones own misconceptions? You really believe yourself to be wise but you don't realise that you are not?
As mentioned: "Ignorance is bliss" (let's ingore the other interpretations of the saying...).
So who's being fooled here?
More importantly and going back to my original point, what is the point?
You can tell me you are this and you are that but who is it you really want to convince?
If your actions do not show what you say to be true then do you really believe I would accept what you say?
Is it then you are trying to convince yourself? That if you say it enough, it might come true? Or is it as I said before, that you do not know that you not are what you say you are.
If some of this seems familiar it is because it probably is and I've probably written about under the title of Honesty and that is I think, the most base underlying "Truth".
The observant ones will notice that despite the frequency with my use of "I" here, I haven't actually said much about myself. Neat trick, huh?
But this, being a statement of sorts does reveal things about me. Perhaps they are things that are even more telling than by me simply making a point. Even if I do make a point, it only makes sense when you read it and interpret it as how you see it. How you see me depends on what you know about me and what you think about me. Me telling you something isn't going to change what you believe me to be, no matter how many times I tell you otherwise so why do I need to make a point?
Some people would say that I am mysterious; that I like to keep secrets and whatnot. If I say the simple truth here is that I am actually more simple than people think I am, what would you think?
Heidigger would say that your belief that I am being secretive and snide and mysterious and sly is only a reflection of how you are. You think I am saying one thing, hinting at another and meaning another is because that is what you do and hence you see it in others.
I have learnt in my time that keeping things simple is the best way to go about things. It isn't always easy as things are never black and white but most of the time, it does all boil down to one simple question:
do you want to, or do you not want to.
To justify it or to rationalise it is in a way, an exercise to make yourself feel better about it.
Case in point; the diminished responsibilty as shown by the Milgram Experiment.
If you want to say something, say it.
If you want to do something, do it.
Whether those things you say or do will be pleasing to others or not is not 100% down to you. If it hurts someone then that is in part down to something inside them. If it gets a reaction it will be because what you say reflects a truth that they don't want to hear. But if it is true, how can you be doing wrong? Justifying, or rationalising things isn't always a good thing whereas I think being honest is, even if it sometimes causes pain.
In fact, I think pain and hurt is a good thing, especially if really is from having a truth revealed to us.
If we truly are only reflectionss of our interactions, then getting hurt is a tool from which we can learn from. Hiding from pain or hurt, either on the giving or receiving end is then merely hiding from the possibility of growing from it.
As said earlier: "ignorance is bliss"
But let's take a step back a bit.
This is how I like things to be; simple.
When I say something, that is usually all that I mean.
By the same token, I like it when people say what they mean with no padding or fluff.
Because of this, some have called me blunt, tackless and even called me insensitive. If I was being honest, I'd have to say that yup, all true but I also know that those things were said about me because it was down in part to them as well. Interactions and all that. You had a problem with me being straight about things. That isn't the same as me having a problem with what I say.
Perhaps it's time you started asking yourelf some questions and answering them honestly.
Y'know, I always thought I had posted about Honesty before but can't for the life of me find here, or on the chocolate pot. One thing though, I have always tried to keep the two things seperate. That one was supposed to be for the more pointless pointless posts; mental masturbation if you will. For the random photos of people/places/things I've been to or seen while this has the more, well, hopefully intellectual postings. Lately, however, the two seem to merge more and more to the point where there is less of a line of divergence between what goes there and what goes here and both seem to have lost their individual character. Of course, that doesn't matter much as these have always been about me writing for me to read later and laugh about afterwards more than anything. That is why they have never been advertised or promoted or even openly listed. Perhaps that is a good thing. Then again, maybe not.
Going bnack to the theme of this post, if I don't get a reaction from others to the things I post, then these things do not exist. If they do not exist and do not get a reaction, then I have nothing to base their relevance and their "truth" on.
Perhaps my not showing these things to others is my little way of telling myself lies.
This Is My Truth?
justified or rationalised?
there is fine between both and they are both very similar in many ways. The difference though, is the frame of reference. To be justified, there is a a reference to an acceptabilty. To be rationalised is to find an excuse for the action.
You can say that one refers to what is right for the situation and the other searches for a reason to be right in the situation.
I think the biggest difference between you and me is that you like to make statements whereas I like to ask questions. The problem I see in making statements is that too often, they are blinded by their own purpose and let's not forget, the point of any statement is to make a point and hence have an ulterior purpose. The best way to truely understand the point of the statement is to question it. Statements tend to be a result of a thought process, something that follows a path focused by the original intent. As such, often, the one making the statement only sees his own goal and forgets, or perhaps doesn't quite see, the other possible interpretations of the statement. That is why you tend to see deeper into someone by the things they make statements about and it ranges from all levels of statements, from the small ones said in slight to the ones proclaiming a "truth".
I am a perfectionist.
Some people can't handle being honest.
I prefer to do it the old fashioned way.
Three statements said by a great many people but three statements that say so much about them who say it.
So where does the humble question come into this?
Let's start with the most obvious and most powerful one; Why?
At the most basic level, you have to wonder why one would make statements about themselves?
Psychologists and Philosophers will wax on about individuals' needs to be part of a group, to have things that they can use to identify themselves with. To these people, these statements are things which they use to define who they are, in essence, a badge.
Is there anything wrong with this?
In short, no.
I am a firm believer in that we as individuals do not exist.
We only really exist when we interact with the things (and people) around us. OK, that's not new and it's certainly not something I thought up by myself. To be honest, I can't even remember where that comes from. At a guess, it's either Heidigger or Cant or maybe even Barthes but that's not the point. The point is that it makes sense to me. If I only really exist when I interact with people, then the simple statement is merely a tool in that interaction.
I tell you what I like and what I am like and you'll understand me better.
Makes sense, no?
It all falls apart though, when one starts to lie and to deceive.
Obvious really.
Except it isn't that simple. I've said earlier that I believe that the individual (as far as one can be...) is smart. We aren't often fooled by lies. If someone says he is something he is not, then it is more often than not blatently obvious. Confucius pointed out that the wise man doesn't tell others he is wise, rather that others tell him he is wise because he is.
That is something else I believe to be true.
That is of course only taking into consideration, lies that are told to others to deceive. How about lies that are based on ones own misconceptions? You really believe yourself to be wise but you don't realise that you are not?
As mentioned: "Ignorance is bliss" (let's ingore the other interpretations of the saying...).
So who's being fooled here?
More importantly and going back to my original point, what is the point?
You can tell me you are this and you are that but who is it you really want to convince?
If your actions do not show what you say to be true then do you really believe I would accept what you say?
Is it then you are trying to convince yourself? That if you say it enough, it might come true? Or is it as I said before, that you do not know that you not are what you say you are.
If some of this seems familiar it is because it probably is and I've probably written about under the title of Honesty and that is I think, the most base underlying "Truth".
The observant ones will notice that despite the frequency with my use of "I" here, I haven't actually said much about myself. Neat trick, huh?
But this, being a statement of sorts does reveal things about me. Perhaps they are things that are even more telling than by me simply making a point. Even if I do make a point, it only makes sense when you read it and interpret it as how you see it. How you see me depends on what you know about me and what you think about me. Me telling you something isn't going to change what you believe me to be, no matter how many times I tell you otherwise so why do I need to make a point?
Some people would say that I am mysterious; that I like to keep secrets and whatnot. If I say the simple truth here is that I am actually more simple than people think I am, what would you think?
Heidigger would say that your belief that I am being secretive and snide and mysterious and sly is only a reflection of how you are. You think I am saying one thing, hinting at another and meaning another is because that is what you do and hence you see it in others.
I have learnt in my time that keeping things simple is the best way to go about things. It isn't always easy as things are never black and white but most of the time, it does all boil down to one simple question:
do you want to, or do you not want to.
To justify it or to rationalise it is in a way, an exercise to make yourself feel better about it.
Case in point; the diminished responsibilty as shown by the Milgram Experiment.
If you want to say something, say it.
If you want to do something, do it.
Whether those things you say or do will be pleasing to others or not is not 100% down to you. If it hurts someone then that is in part down to something inside them. If it gets a reaction it will be because what you say reflects a truth that they don't want to hear. But if it is true, how can you be doing wrong? Justifying, or rationalising things isn't always a good thing whereas I think being honest is, even if it sometimes causes pain.
In fact, I think pain and hurt is a good thing, especially if really is from having a truth revealed to us.
If we truly are only reflectionss of our interactions, then getting hurt is a tool from which we can learn from. Hiding from pain or hurt, either on the giving or receiving end is then merely hiding from the possibility of growing from it.
As said earlier: "ignorance is bliss"
But let's take a step back a bit.
This is how I like things to be; simple.
When I say something, that is usually all that I mean.
By the same token, I like it when people say what they mean with no padding or fluff.
Because of this, some have called me blunt, tackless and even called me insensitive. If I was being honest, I'd have to say that yup, all true but I also know that those things were said about me because it was down in part to them as well. Interactions and all that. You had a problem with me being straight about things. That isn't the same as me having a problem with what I say.
Perhaps it's time you started asking yourelf some questions and answering them honestly.
Y'know, I always thought I had posted about Honesty before but can't for the life of me find here, or on the chocolate pot. One thing though, I have always tried to keep the two things seperate. That one was supposed to be for the more pointless pointless posts; mental masturbation if you will. For the random photos of people/places/things I've been to or seen while this has the more, well, hopefully intellectual postings. Lately, however, the two seem to merge more and more to the point where there is less of a line of divergence between what goes there and what goes here and both seem to have lost their individual character. Of course, that doesn't matter much as these have always been about me writing for me to read later and laugh about afterwards more than anything. That is why they have never been advertised or promoted or even openly listed. Perhaps that is a good thing. Then again, maybe not.
Going bnack to the theme of this post, if I don't get a reaction from others to the things I post, then these things do not exist. If they do not exist and do not get a reaction, then I have nothing to base their relevance and their "truth" on.
Perhaps my not showing these things to others is my little way of telling myself lies.
This Is My Truth?
Sunday, October 07, 2007
over-estimating?
Came across this little bit of news today.
The short of it is that McDonald's is proposing to offer free Wi-FI in all of their 1200 branches in th e UK. Now the first bit of surprise is that there are only 1200 McDonald's here. For some reason, I had always imagined that there were more, especially seeing as there are 2 in my little town and this ain't no megalopolis.
The other bit of surprise is that they think it will help their business or that it even appeals to their core customer group.
Now I could be wrong but as far as I can tell, McDonald's are mostly frequented by students between the ages 12-18 during their 1 hour lunch break , parents and their accompanying screaming 6 year olds and let's be honest here, people who don't/can't cook. Ok, I'll admit that is a gross generalisation but by and large, you can't deny it is not true.
How often have you gone past a McDonald's and seen it full of schoolkids pissing about?
Of course, there are exceptions, most notably being the lunch crowd from offices and whatnot but still, none of these groups are ever in there that long nor are they the type to carry a laptop into McDonalds so they check their blogs and forums whilst munching away on a Big Mac (or whatever it is they sell these days).
Factor in the aforementioned schools kids pissing about and let me ask you, can you see anyone in their right mind pulling out a laptop?
So what's the point?
Are McDonald's trying to pull in new customers?
They have been massively changing their menu the past two years to the point that they don't even advertise their famous Big Mac anymore. In fact, the way they have been advertising, I'm not even sure if they still do a Big Mac. The only things I hear about are Deli-whatever sandwiches.
So, who are they trying to attract?
Young and hip, cashrich, time poor, young working professionals?
Maybe.
That is if you forget about how well, untrendy it is and always will be to hang around in a McDonalds.
Can't be the adults.
Can't be the Kids.
They almost have no choice but to go there for lunch/dinner.
That is also forgetting that the majority of McDonald's managers seem to have major sticks up their arses. I remember seeing loitering penalty signs in my local McD's when I were a lad but now they want people to hang around more? Sounds a little counter-intuitive to the fast food ideal.
In my opinion, they've massively over-estimated their core customer base and they've over-estimated the attraction of Wi-Fi.
It works for let's say Starbucks because that's what cafes and coffe shops are about. My favourite little coffee/cake shop has always been a very generous host, never hurrying me even if I am blatently holding a little design meeting in there. Can you see McDonald's doing the same?
The short of it is that McDonald's is proposing to offer free Wi-FI in all of their 1200 branches in th e UK. Now the first bit of surprise is that there are only 1200 McDonald's here. For some reason, I had always imagined that there were more, especially seeing as there are 2 in my little town and this ain't no megalopolis.
The other bit of surprise is that they think it will help their business or that it even appeals to their core customer group.
Now I could be wrong but as far as I can tell, McDonald's are mostly frequented by students between the ages 12-18 during their 1 hour lunch break , parents and their accompanying screaming 6 year olds and let's be honest here, people who don't/can't cook. Ok, I'll admit that is a gross generalisation but by and large, you can't deny it is not true.
How often have you gone past a McDonald's and seen it full of schoolkids pissing about?
Of course, there are exceptions, most notably being the lunch crowd from offices and whatnot but still, none of these groups are ever in there that long nor are they the type to carry a laptop into McDonalds so they check their blogs and forums whilst munching away on a Big Mac (or whatever it is they sell these days).
Factor in the aforementioned schools kids pissing about and let me ask you, can you see anyone in their right mind pulling out a laptop?
So what's the point?
Are McDonald's trying to pull in new customers?
They have been massively changing their menu the past two years to the point that they don't even advertise their famous Big Mac anymore. In fact, the way they have been advertising, I'm not even sure if they still do a Big Mac. The only things I hear about are Deli-whatever sandwiches.
So, who are they trying to attract?
Young and hip, cashrich, time poor, young working professionals?
Maybe.
That is if you forget about how well, untrendy it is and always will be to hang around in a McDonalds.
Can't be the adults.
Can't be the Kids.
They almost have no choice but to go there for lunch/dinner.
That is also forgetting that the majority of McDonald's managers seem to have major sticks up their arses. I remember seeing loitering penalty signs in my local McD's when I were a lad but now they want people to hang around more? Sounds a little counter-intuitive to the fast food ideal.
In my opinion, they've massively over-estimated their core customer base and they've over-estimated the attraction of Wi-Fi.
It works for let's say Starbucks because that's what cafes and coffe shops are about. My favourite little coffee/cake shop has always been a very generous host, never hurrying me even if I am blatently holding a little design meeting in there. Can you see McDonald's doing the same?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
3.4 Billion
That is a huge number, especially when it is preceded by that lovely little £ but surprisingly it is also quite a common figure in politics and current events. Have you tried googling that figure to see what you get? I'm going to guess not as well, I can't imagine much fun to be gained from it but none-the-less, I did so.
A quick run down of the most popular results.
£3.4 Billion is:
the total cost of income support and family credit for 1.3 million single parent families in 1993
the cost of dealing with problems arising from local environmental quality and anti-social behaviour.
the amount spent by local councils on "education prgrams" in 2005
the amount funding given by the National Lottert, Government and London Authority
$3.4 Billion is:
the amount of tax generated by nonprofit organizations involved with school music programs for the U.S. Treasury each year.
the amount that would be set aside for the training and recruitment of teachers under Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (ignoring whether or not that money ever was set aside...)
3.4 Billion is:
the number of children that have received help/benefits/support from Save The Children.
the number people estimated to be living in countries/areas that are water scarce.
and two final results:
£3.4 Billion is how much it would cost to put every child in the world into school.
£3.4 Billion is how much the UK spends on cosmetics and health products in one year.
That is all.
I think that says enough.
A quick run down of the most popular results.
£3.4 Billion is:
the total cost of income support and family credit for 1.3 million single parent families in 1993
the cost of dealing with problems arising from local environmental quality and anti-social behaviour.
the amount spent by local councils on "education prgrams" in 2005
the amount funding given by the National Lottert, Government and London Authority
$3.4 Billion is:
the amount of tax generated by nonprofit organizations involved with school music programs for the U.S. Treasury each year.
the amount that would be set aside for the training and recruitment of teachers under Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (ignoring whether or not that money ever was set aside...)
3.4 Billion is:
the number of children that have received help/benefits/support from Save The Children.
the number people estimated to be living in countries/areas that are water scarce.
and two final results:
£3.4 Billion is how much it would cost to put every child in the world into school.
£3.4 Billion is how much the UK spends on cosmetics and health products in one year.
That is all.
I think that says enough.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
new old news
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Once again, our politcal news has been taken over by the school reports of one of the party leaders regarding something that happend 20+ years ago and an age before they were even in the political world.
Why?
Because over the years, instead of politicians telling us what a good job they will do and what lovely new policies and ideas they will implement to aid our ever burdening lives; they have gone the American way and are now more eager to point out flaws in their opposition, often by digging deep into near history in the vain hope of finding something that might be incriminating.
Good job.
Now what are you going to do for me instead?
Does the fact that the current Conservative leader smoked a bit of pot when he was in at Eton (shock horror! drugs in an extortionately expensive boarding school? Never....) have any bearing on whether or not he will be a good leader for the party or even the country? Does that little drug incident that happened 25 years ago in a different instittution mean that his policies and work ethics today are going to be in some way lacking or even erroneous?
Is it perhaps a good sign that the best (or is it worst) that they can come up with is a bit of hash 25 years ago?
What makes it more laughable to me is that it isn't anything more than marijuana (perhaps my response is an indication of the change in times) at the centre of this. Considering that alcohol is arguably the more destructive drug of the two, the only difference is that one had been made illegal and the other is a massive source of tax revenue for the government.
Once again, our politcal news has been taken over by the school reports of one of the party leaders regarding something that happend 20+ years ago and an age before they were even in the political world.
Why?
Because over the years, instead of politicians telling us what a good job they will do and what lovely new policies and ideas they will implement to aid our ever burdening lives; they have gone the American way and are now more eager to point out flaws in their opposition, often by digging deep into near history in the vain hope of finding something that might be incriminating.
Good job.
Now what are you going to do for me instead?
Does the fact that the current Conservative leader smoked a bit of pot when he was in at Eton (shock horror! drugs in an extortionately expensive boarding school? Never....) have any bearing on whether or not he will be a good leader for the party or even the country? Does that little drug incident that happened 25 years ago in a different instittution mean that his policies and work ethics today are going to be in some way lacking or even erroneous?
Is it perhaps a good sign that the best (or is it worst) that they can come up with is a bit of hash 25 years ago?
What makes it more laughable to me is that it isn't anything more than marijuana (perhaps my response is an indication of the change in times) at the centre of this. Considering that alcohol is arguably the more destructive drug of the two, the only difference is that one had been made illegal and the other is a massive source of tax revenue for the government.
0 degrees C
....that was what I was driving home to the other day.
For some random reason (well, not entirely random as it was dependent on pressure systems and all that....) it decided to snow this week. I woke up at around 5 in the morning to get myself a drink and I noticed that the light coming from outside had turned into that lovely red glow that it turns into whenever it snows and so I flicked open the blinds and lo and behold, snow.
For the few moments that i stood there drinking my cranberry and looking outside, I was thinking that it was strangely pretty but alas, this thought quickly turned as I remembered that I was supposed to be driving the next day.
If you've never driven around when it's snowed, I suggest you do it the next time it happens.
Strange things happen when it snows.
Firstly, there are those who refuse to drive in the snow having had bad experiences previously or are just afraid of having a bad experience. These people sensibly stay out of cars and choose ti instead sit in the nice and safe comfort of their homes.
There there are those who refuse to be defeated by snow and charge on in their cars regardless. Of these, there are the inner circle of people who seem to forget everything they know about driving safely when snow is about as if to say to the driver in front "My God!, You don't have to drive like a granny just because there is snow" (no offence to grannies).
Me?
I drive the same no matter what the weather is; that is to say that I drive as faast as I think I can go according to the conditions. On the same drive I can go from crusing at 50mph to flying at 90 depending. Logic says to me that considering that things are iffier when it's wet, when it's icy and slushy out there. I better be that little bit more cautious. This isn't rocket science. I'm pretty sure that everyone, when sat down away from the steering wheel and merely talking about it would agree with this so why the change when we are behind the wheel of a car and driving?
Who knows?
I certainly don't.
But I digress.
What I had wanted to talk about was how people in general seem to change when it snows.
That usual bunch of kids who spend 95% of the time trying their hardest to look cool and macho and gangsta suddenly revert back to being children. Grannies (sorry again) who are usually grumpy and miserable suddenly turn into nice old ladies. People who usually stay indoors no matter what happens go into their front yards with their little kids and build snowmen.
For some reason, snow makes it kinda OK to be cold despite it actually being one of the worst weather conditions to have.
Ahhh... such is life.
We all love the things we should hate.
For some random reason (well, not entirely random as it was dependent on pressure systems and all that....) it decided to snow this week. I woke up at around 5 in the morning to get myself a drink and I noticed that the light coming from outside had turned into that lovely red glow that it turns into whenever it snows and so I flicked open the blinds and lo and behold, snow.
For the few moments that i stood there drinking my cranberry and looking outside, I was thinking that it was strangely pretty but alas, this thought quickly turned as I remembered that I was supposed to be driving the next day.
If you've never driven around when it's snowed, I suggest you do it the next time it happens.
Strange things happen when it snows.
Firstly, there are those who refuse to drive in the snow having had bad experiences previously or are just afraid of having a bad experience. These people sensibly stay out of cars and choose ti instead sit in the nice and safe comfort of their homes.
There there are those who refuse to be defeated by snow and charge on in their cars regardless. Of these, there are the inner circle of people who seem to forget everything they know about driving safely when snow is about as if to say to the driver in front "My God!, You don't have to drive like a granny just because there is snow" (no offence to grannies).
Me?
I drive the same no matter what the weather is; that is to say that I drive as faast as I think I can go according to the conditions. On the same drive I can go from crusing at 50mph to flying at 90 depending. Logic says to me that considering that things are iffier when it's wet, when it's icy and slushy out there. I better be that little bit more cautious. This isn't rocket science. I'm pretty sure that everyone, when sat down away from the steering wheel and merely talking about it would agree with this so why the change when we are behind the wheel of a car and driving?
Who knows?
I certainly don't.
But I digress.
What I had wanted to talk about was how people in general seem to change when it snows.
That usual bunch of kids who spend 95% of the time trying their hardest to look cool and macho and gangsta suddenly revert back to being children. Grannies (sorry again) who are usually grumpy and miserable suddenly turn into nice old ladies. People who usually stay indoors no matter what happens go into their front yards with their little kids and build snowmen.
For some reason, snow makes it kinda OK to be cold despite it actually being one of the worst weather conditions to have.
Ahhh... such is life.
We all love the things we should hate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
