That is all.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
