The youth of the world are being softened by those who raise them. Almost from the moment they escape the womb, children are taught that they are special and that they are living in a world where all people are created equal. We make games of their entire education. That might work for kindergarteners or pre-schoolers, who's motor skills are still developing. The truth is, we don't need to make up educational games for our children. They learn by playing. When their brains are developing, everything is a kind of game to them. You know what though? It's never too early to teach your spawn about the pain of disappointment or that the strongest and smartest are often victorious. But from what I've observed, we have our kids watching Bob the Builder and Dora the Explorer to teach them basic things. Is this because we, as adults can't be bothered to rear our own young or just because we want them to be silent?
All this seems to me, to be a terrible disservice to the children we generate. People seem to have no problem playing for hours on end with a puppy or kitten, but a baby human just seems to be too much bother or perhaps worse, it gets boring or frustrating to deal with. Upon birth we expose our kids to a non-serious, game-like mindset and then when they grow older and refuse to mature, we scratch our heads and ask 'what the hell?'. This shouldn't be surprising but it is. We raise our children to play games and then expect them to go out into the real world when they legally become an adult and be prepared to take on the challenges of life and nature?!
To be fair though, the youth do nothing on their own to mature except in order to impress the opposite sex. Yet they often can't figure out that life is built on conflict: conflict with circumstance, conflict with people, conflict with authority, conflict with nature. I could go on and on. Life is struggle, and as adults the best thing we can do for children is to put them in a situation where they are forced to shed their childhood. A serious situation which is life or death.
The unfortunate truth is that adults don't take children seriously, and children think adults are a joke. One side needs to show that it isn't fucking around, and it shouldn't fall onto the kids. Kids need to play and have fun until they grow out of it, which they will if adults stop making life into a game for them. Keep in mind, I'm not saying life isn't fun. Life's spectacular, but not always a game.
One way or another, the next generation needs to stop being pampered and played with...or a bear will eat it.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A real Medium?.....Rare.
People die. That's not news. Hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people die every day. You might say it sucks, but it has to happen. If people didn't die, think about about how hungry you'd be....forever. Generally speaking, people dislike death because it deprives someone of a loved one. Well that seems noble, I suppose. By definition we enjoy the company of our loved ones and don't want them to be gone forever. We all grieve those we love and lose.
But how many people die every day that you do not grieve? Thousands probably. Well you may say in your defense that you didn't know about those people. To which I would respond that I never knew them either, ergo I don't care at all about their deaths. The fact is people hate and fear death when it threatens them or those they love. When people die we do not grieve their loss of life, we grieve for their leaving us. How many of you have family or friends dying from the infirmities of old age? How many of you would take away their ailments so they may remain among you longer? Do you really think their lives are going to be more fulfilling for the little extra time you're giving them? Or are you just postponing the inevitable because you don't want to picture your life without them?
Everyone needs to understand that grief is a mask donned by selfishness. People can't picture living without their friends or family, nor can they stand being confronted with their own mortality. It is for this reason that the medium exists. Where the vulnerable stand in tears, the predator will swoop in to take what he may. They may take any form from a kindly gypsy with a crystal pendulum and Ouija board, or may take the form of a respectable man on a television show named whose initials are J.E. These psychic vultures understand that people have money and want hope, while they want money and can give hope. Seems like a fair trade, right? Hope is a good thing, right? Right. Hope is great until it's dashed upon reality like a piece of glass upon a stone. Hope is always a gamble, but when it pays off there's nothing like it...except maybe sex. False hope, however is an abomination. It is hope that cannot possibly pay off. Hope that is meant to be broken always hurts those who keep it close to their heart. Learning that your dead mother yet exists in heaven must be a real relief if you just want to leave it at that. But if someone really believes their mother is an angel, then they will pray to their mother, and ask her for advice, and talk to her like she's still alive. And if you aren't really expecting something to come of all this, that's fine too. But what if you're at least expecting some form of supernatural protection? What if you get hit by a car and get your collarbone, ribs, and legs broken, and liver ruptured? Did your angelic mother want this to happen or was she just lying down on the job? Or maybe she's just gone, dead, taking the big sleep, and beyond the pale? This is the cost of false hope sold to you by some psychic prophet.
I could go on forever about the evils of mediums. I will abridge myself though by saying that psychics and other mediums are only taking your money and giving you lies in return. They're similar to the churches except they don't care for your obedience. They want only the product of your ability to work so they themselves won't have to. There are many ways to assuage one's grief, but giving money to someone so they can take advantage of your heart ache is not one of them.
Hail, and good night.
But how many people die every day that you do not grieve? Thousands probably. Well you may say in your defense that you didn't know about those people. To which I would respond that I never knew them either, ergo I don't care at all about their deaths. The fact is people hate and fear death when it threatens them or those they love. When people die we do not grieve their loss of life, we grieve for their leaving us. How many of you have family or friends dying from the infirmities of old age? How many of you would take away their ailments so they may remain among you longer? Do you really think their lives are going to be more fulfilling for the little extra time you're giving them? Or are you just postponing the inevitable because you don't want to picture your life without them?
Everyone needs to understand that grief is a mask donned by selfishness. People can't picture living without their friends or family, nor can they stand being confronted with their own mortality. It is for this reason that the medium exists. Where the vulnerable stand in tears, the predator will swoop in to take what he may. They may take any form from a kindly gypsy with a crystal pendulum and Ouija board, or may take the form of a respectable man on a television show named whose initials are J.E. These psychic vultures understand that people have money and want hope, while they want money and can give hope. Seems like a fair trade, right? Hope is a good thing, right? Right. Hope is great until it's dashed upon reality like a piece of glass upon a stone. Hope is always a gamble, but when it pays off there's nothing like it...except maybe sex. False hope, however is an abomination. It is hope that cannot possibly pay off. Hope that is meant to be broken always hurts those who keep it close to their heart. Learning that your dead mother yet exists in heaven must be a real relief if you just want to leave it at that. But if someone really believes their mother is an angel, then they will pray to their mother, and ask her for advice, and talk to her like she's still alive. And if you aren't really expecting something to come of all this, that's fine too. But what if you're at least expecting some form of supernatural protection? What if you get hit by a car and get your collarbone, ribs, and legs broken, and liver ruptured? Did your angelic mother want this to happen or was she just lying down on the job? Or maybe she's just gone, dead, taking the big sleep, and beyond the pale? This is the cost of false hope sold to you by some psychic prophet.
I could go on forever about the evils of mediums. I will abridge myself though by saying that psychics and other mediums are only taking your money and giving you lies in return. They're similar to the churches except they don't care for your obedience. They want only the product of your ability to work so they themselves won't have to. There are many ways to assuage one's grief, but giving money to someone so they can take advantage of your heart ache is not one of them.
Hail, and good night.
Monday, March 29, 2010
When you walk into a door...of perception!!
Perception is one of the most powerful forces in the universe, aside from gravity and the other laws of physics. Words like "Good" and "Evil" are based upon forced perception. So let us examine what perception is and what it does to us.
Because I love quoting from the dictionary so much here's dictionary.com's definition of the word 'perception':
"per·cep·tion [per-sep-shuhn]
–noun
1.
the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3.
the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4.
Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
5.
Law. the taking into possession of rents, crops, profits, etc."
Seems unusually convoluted, huh? Well it really is, but for the purposes of this writing, we'll only focus on the first two uses of the word.
Now a big problem with people's perceptions is that they can be conditioned. As I've mentioned earlier, words like good and evil are based upon perception. How can we intuitively know what is good and what is evil? Well outside of civilization, we can't. In the wild, other animals understand that surviving is 'good', though they don't comprehend the concept. More interestingly, in the wild, 'evil' does not exist. There are of course, genetic and socially deviant behaviors; but using words like 'evil' implies that such behaviors are performed with malicious intent. When a new male lion rises to dominance in a pride the first thing he does is kill all of the cubs. To us, this might seem wicked, but to him it's simply preservation of the species.
Words like 'good' and 'evil' were created by early society's leaders to make sure people felt rewarded for following the laws set before them. Otherwise, as we gathered together in groups, we would have fought each other for dominance and property (and probably more unsavory reasons, such as mental illness). We were taught from a young age to perceive actions such as stealing and murder as being evil and to refrain from being evil. In similar fashion we are taught to perceive our home nation as being superior to all others and worth killing for.
The more frightening thing about perception is that even when it's not controlled, it's still wildly chaotic. A good example is from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet...kind of. I maintain that the movie West Side Story is a modern (for the time) musical remake of Romeo & Juliet. I've known people who claim that this isn't so, due to a few differences in the story. I believe that they're wrong. But when you look at the ending of the movie and the hero dies, but not the heroin you could say that it isn't Shakespearean at all. Maybe it's not, but from where I sit, West Side Story is Romeo & Juliet set in NYC with a bunch of fruity looking synchronized dancing (if only gangs really fought like that, we might just be living in a safer world).
Another interesting thing about perception is that it is the root of all justification. If you're at a bar and someone spills a drink on you, you could easily justify breaking his nose, if you perceive the spilling as being intentional and/or insulting.
That's yet another fascinating thing about perception is that if you can observe the way someone perceives things, you can get to know him very well without even exchanging words with him. For example if a man were to be dumped by his girlfriend via a "dear John" letter, and the man reacts angrily and violently; you could note that he is probably a very aggressive person who doesn't handle loss very well at all. In all likelihood, though the man's girlfriend just fell out of love with him. Or maybe she found someone better. Another great example of this is nearly any Abrahamic religion (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). All of them have conflicting messages somewhere in their holy texts, or have some clergy who corrupts the messages of said texts. Christians can justify hate, condemnation, torture, death, misogyny, or almost anything just by turning to the right page of the bible (a book I use in this case because it is the text I'm most familiar with). Meanwhile another Christian can pick up the same book and use it to justify universal love and peace to all living things.
What you must keep in mind though is that perception is highly individualized. What's black and white to some may be shades of gray to someone else. What you need to remember about perception is that just because someone doesn't share yours doesn't mean you should tell him he's wrong. Perception, like faith is dependent on belief (or lack thereof). So unless someone's perception is hurting you, you should probably just leave people and how they see things alone. Everyone's entitled to two things: their opinions and their perceptions...even if they're wrong.
*credit for this essay's idea goes to PuNkTuReD*
Because I love quoting from the dictionary so much here's dictionary.com's definition of the word 'perception':
"per·cep·tion [per-sep-shuhn]
–noun
1.
the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3.
the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4.
Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
5.
Law. the taking into possession of rents, crops, profits, etc."
Seems unusually convoluted, huh? Well it really is, but for the purposes of this writing, we'll only focus on the first two uses of the word.
Now a big problem with people's perceptions is that they can be conditioned. As I've mentioned earlier, words like good and evil are based upon perception. How can we intuitively know what is good and what is evil? Well outside of civilization, we can't. In the wild, other animals understand that surviving is 'good', though they don't comprehend the concept. More interestingly, in the wild, 'evil' does not exist. There are of course, genetic and socially deviant behaviors; but using words like 'evil' implies that such behaviors are performed with malicious intent. When a new male lion rises to dominance in a pride the first thing he does is kill all of the cubs. To us, this might seem wicked, but to him it's simply preservation of the species.
Words like 'good' and 'evil' were created by early society's leaders to make sure people felt rewarded for following the laws set before them. Otherwise, as we gathered together in groups, we would have fought each other for dominance and property (and probably more unsavory reasons, such as mental illness). We were taught from a young age to perceive actions such as stealing and murder as being evil and to refrain from being evil. In similar fashion we are taught to perceive our home nation as being superior to all others and worth killing for.
The more frightening thing about perception is that even when it's not controlled, it's still wildly chaotic. A good example is from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet...kind of. I maintain that the movie West Side Story is a modern (for the time) musical remake of Romeo & Juliet. I've known people who claim that this isn't so, due to a few differences in the story. I believe that they're wrong. But when you look at the ending of the movie and the hero dies, but not the heroin you could say that it isn't Shakespearean at all. Maybe it's not, but from where I sit, West Side Story is Romeo & Juliet set in NYC with a bunch of fruity looking synchronized dancing (if only gangs really fought like that, we might just be living in a safer world).
Another interesting thing about perception is that it is the root of all justification. If you're at a bar and someone spills a drink on you, you could easily justify breaking his nose, if you perceive the spilling as being intentional and/or insulting.
That's yet another fascinating thing about perception is that if you can observe the way someone perceives things, you can get to know him very well without even exchanging words with him. For example if a man were to be dumped by his girlfriend via a "dear John" letter, and the man reacts angrily and violently; you could note that he is probably a very aggressive person who doesn't handle loss very well at all. In all likelihood, though the man's girlfriend just fell out of love with him. Or maybe she found someone better. Another great example of this is nearly any Abrahamic religion (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). All of them have conflicting messages somewhere in their holy texts, or have some clergy who corrupts the messages of said texts. Christians can justify hate, condemnation, torture, death, misogyny, or almost anything just by turning to the right page of the bible (a book I use in this case because it is the text I'm most familiar with). Meanwhile another Christian can pick up the same book and use it to justify universal love and peace to all living things.
What you must keep in mind though is that perception is highly individualized. What's black and white to some may be shades of gray to someone else. What you need to remember about perception is that just because someone doesn't share yours doesn't mean you should tell him he's wrong. Perception, like faith is dependent on belief (or lack thereof). So unless someone's perception is hurting you, you should probably just leave people and how they see things alone. Everyone's entitled to two things: their opinions and their perceptions...even if they're wrong.
*credit for this essay's idea goes to PuNkTuReD*
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Vampires
By popular demand, here's my considered opinion about the vampires. Shut the fuck up about them already, world!! I'm over hearing about them. I admit I used to play Vampire: The Masquerade.....in High School! And really the only reason I did that is because I liked the super powers, and Machiavellian back-stabbing (that and I couldn't slit someone's throat or hit them in the ribs with a sledge hammer in real life). But how many people have seen earlier vampire movies? What's the big deal?
I just don't get the allure anymore. People think they're erotic? Nosferatu was not fucking sexy, he was about as deformed a creature as I've ever seen. The myth has also been kind of appended to the extent that a vampire's bite is supposed to bring an almost orgasmic sensation. Now I didn't make it too far into Bram Stoker's "Dracula", but from what I remember, getting bit by the him hurt like a mother fucker and left his victims paralyzed and unable to resist. As for their unnatural beauty, without fail, the only hot chicks in any vampire movie are the ones who aren't vampires. What does that tell you? Bella Lugosi was probably the last (if not only) mildly handsome yet believable creature of the night.
Maybe that's what people like so much. Vampires are hunters in the darkness. Well guess what people? SO ARE RAPISTS!! And I don't see any spooky-sexy movies about the guy in a ski mask who holds a knife at your throat while you're at the ATM at 2 a.m and fucks you against your will.
Perhaps the main draw with vampires is that they hunt living beings and kill them in order to sustain themselves. Jeffrey Dahmer did that too, and if we hear about anyone sexually attracted to someone like that we assume they're not right in the head. Here's some food for thought, vampires drain the blood from living beings in order to sustain themselves. Sometimes they don't even kill their victims. They leave said victims alive so they can drink from them again later. There's a word for people like that: parasite. That's right, vampires are basically super-powered humans with the feeding habits of a flea. Not something I'd consider hot.
I suppose one of the main draws of vampires nowadays is that they seem tormented. I'll freely admit that I got bored reading "Dracula" and stopped reading it. But from what I did finish, Dracula didn't seem all that tormented at all. From what I saw he actually reveled in his nature and was in fact trying to recruit the main heroin into his harem of undead brides. Not seeing much self-loathing here.
Now one of the more popular vampire stories these days is Twilight. I'd like to point out something about the main character from the movie previews I've seen. More than a fair amount of the movie takes place during the day time. Now by folkloric definition, vampires cannot go out during the day or they die. That's not an opinion, that's the very root of the vampiric mythology. The fact that the hero of the Twilight story, Edmund apparently spends his days doing anything other than sleeping kind implies that he's not a vampire at all, but more of a Highlander with Renfield's Syndrome (look it up. it's a real thing). And as the story goes, he's several hundred years old and a virgin! How on earth could one live that long looking like someone on his way to tryouts for some boy-band and not have gotten laid at least once over the centuries?! Is that even physically possible? Okay, maybe it's a moral thing for him, adultery and such. But then how the FUCK can you reconcile drinking the blood of a living human to stay alive and consider sex wrong? It defies rational thought. Seriously, I can feel my brain cells popping like a bowl of rice crispies just considering it.
Now don't get me wrong, I am quite fascinated by various folkloric figures. But you can bet dollars to pesos that not one of them has ever been a masturbatory fantasy for me. That being said, all you vampire lovers need to get your heads out of your asses and find something better to do with your time.
I just don't get the allure anymore. People think they're erotic? Nosferatu was not fucking sexy, he was about as deformed a creature as I've ever seen. The myth has also been kind of appended to the extent that a vampire's bite is supposed to bring an almost orgasmic sensation. Now I didn't make it too far into Bram Stoker's "Dracula", but from what I remember, getting bit by the him hurt like a mother fucker and left his victims paralyzed and unable to resist. As for their unnatural beauty, without fail, the only hot chicks in any vampire movie are the ones who aren't vampires. What does that tell you? Bella Lugosi was probably the last (if not only) mildly handsome yet believable creature of the night.
Maybe that's what people like so much. Vampires are hunters in the darkness. Well guess what people? SO ARE RAPISTS!! And I don't see any spooky-sexy movies about the guy in a ski mask who holds a knife at your throat while you're at the ATM at 2 a.m and fucks you against your will.
Perhaps the main draw with vampires is that they hunt living beings and kill them in order to sustain themselves. Jeffrey Dahmer did that too, and if we hear about anyone sexually attracted to someone like that we assume they're not right in the head. Here's some food for thought, vampires drain the blood from living beings in order to sustain themselves. Sometimes they don't even kill their victims. They leave said victims alive so they can drink from them again later. There's a word for people like that: parasite. That's right, vampires are basically super-powered humans with the feeding habits of a flea. Not something I'd consider hot.
I suppose one of the main draws of vampires nowadays is that they seem tormented. I'll freely admit that I got bored reading "Dracula" and stopped reading it. But from what I did finish, Dracula didn't seem all that tormented at all. From what I saw he actually reveled in his nature and was in fact trying to recruit the main heroin into his harem of undead brides. Not seeing much self-loathing here.
Now one of the more popular vampire stories these days is Twilight. I'd like to point out something about the main character from the movie previews I've seen. More than a fair amount of the movie takes place during the day time. Now by folkloric definition, vampires cannot go out during the day or they die. That's not an opinion, that's the very root of the vampiric mythology. The fact that the hero of the Twilight story, Edmund apparently spends his days doing anything other than sleeping kind implies that he's not a vampire at all, but more of a Highlander with Renfield's Syndrome (look it up. it's a real thing). And as the story goes, he's several hundred years old and a virgin! How on earth could one live that long looking like someone on his way to tryouts for some boy-band and not have gotten laid at least once over the centuries?! Is that even physically possible? Okay, maybe it's a moral thing for him, adultery and such. But then how the FUCK can you reconcile drinking the blood of a living human to stay alive and consider sex wrong? It defies rational thought. Seriously, I can feel my brain cells popping like a bowl of rice crispies just considering it.
Now don't get me wrong, I am quite fascinated by various folkloric figures. But you can bet dollars to pesos that not one of them has ever been a masturbatory fantasy for me. That being said, all you vampire lovers need to get your heads out of your asses and find something better to do with your time.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Global Connection
People rave about how the internet has connected the world into one giant, electronic, global village. Have people lost all desire for privacy and individuality? I know that I haven't. There are people who actually post everything about their lives on their blogs. That seems like kind of a waste of time and energy. Granted I'm sure they're never at a loss for things to talk about, but why? That question covers a lot of ground, so I'll elaborate.
Why do they feel the need to put their food preferences, their sex lives, and life in general on display? Does Joe Average really think that people care? Chances are if these people were of any consequence, they wouldn't be self-publishing their biography as it happens. We all know that's what the media is for. Not only that, but media has the power to make people's lives seem entertaining. Perhaps, Joe thinks he's connecting with people on a personal level?
Why does Joe Average think that having readers in Algeria or Norway is of more substance than connecting with someone in person? If I want to connect with people I'll go to a party, or a bar, or even just talk with a neighbor. If you want to connect with someone don't tell the world. The world is not a person, and no amount of hits on your website is going to be a substitute for talking with someone face to face.
Some people might say that their blog or Facebook or Twitter or what-have-you, allows people to feel a sense of community. Well if people want to feel a sense of community, why don't they get more involved with it? People talk about how the internet let's people connect as a group? Well there's a little website called meetup.com which exists for just that purpose! It exists solely for helping people with mutual interests get together in the flesh to engage in or discuss these interests. It can be anything from some silly activist movement to role-playing games, cooking, or anything you can think of. If you want to feel some community connection, go to this website, or move to a smaller town. Despite what the urban sprawl of the United States would have you think, there are still small burgs where everyone knows and cares about the business of everyone else.
Now one might argue that my own blog renders me hypocritical in such matters as these. After all I'm posting all these essays online where anyone can read them. Well to date I'm only aware of six, maybe seven people who have actually read even one of these essays. The difference though is that I understand why I'm posting these here. One: It's free.
Two: It saves room on my computer's already bursting hard-drive
Three: These essays are relevant. Not just to me, but to anyone with two working brain cells who find their way here.
Four: I need to give vent to my thoughts and this seems like a good enough place to do it. It's kind of like mental exercise.
But I don't delude myself into thinking that I'm making friends doing this. Hell if some far left activist came across this blog, I'd probably start receiving death threats. But this page is largely for my own benefit. But believe what you like.
My point is that if people are posting online journals that anyone can read, don't do so under the pretense of making friends. Just admit to yourself that you're an exhibitionist or just trying to make yourself feel important. I think I can safely say that the only time either of those things is wrong is if you're not doing anything to make yourself a better person. So to quote Edward R. Murrow, "Good night, and good luck".
Why do they feel the need to put their food preferences, their sex lives, and life in general on display? Does Joe Average really think that people care? Chances are if these people were of any consequence, they wouldn't be self-publishing their biography as it happens. We all know that's what the media is for. Not only that, but media has the power to make people's lives seem entertaining. Perhaps, Joe thinks he's connecting with people on a personal level?
Why does Joe Average think that having readers in Algeria or Norway is of more substance than connecting with someone in person? If I want to connect with people I'll go to a party, or a bar, or even just talk with a neighbor. If you want to connect with someone don't tell the world. The world is not a person, and no amount of hits on your website is going to be a substitute for talking with someone face to face.
Some people might say that their blog or Facebook or Twitter or what-have-you, allows people to feel a sense of community. Well if people want to feel a sense of community, why don't they get more involved with it? People talk about how the internet let's people connect as a group? Well there's a little website called meetup.com which exists for just that purpose! It exists solely for helping people with mutual interests get together in the flesh to engage in or discuss these interests. It can be anything from some silly activist movement to role-playing games, cooking, or anything you can think of. If you want to feel some community connection, go to this website, or move to a smaller town. Despite what the urban sprawl of the United States would have you think, there are still small burgs where everyone knows and cares about the business of everyone else.
Now one might argue that my own blog renders me hypocritical in such matters as these. After all I'm posting all these essays online where anyone can read them. Well to date I'm only aware of six, maybe seven people who have actually read even one of these essays. The difference though is that I understand why I'm posting these here. One: It's free.
Two: It saves room on my computer's already bursting hard-drive
Three: These essays are relevant. Not just to me, but to anyone with two working brain cells who find their way here.
Four: I need to give vent to my thoughts and this seems like a good enough place to do it. It's kind of like mental exercise.
But I don't delude myself into thinking that I'm making friends doing this. Hell if some far left activist came across this blog, I'd probably start receiving death threats. But this page is largely for my own benefit. But believe what you like.
My point is that if people are posting online journals that anyone can read, don't do so under the pretense of making friends. Just admit to yourself that you're an exhibitionist or just trying to make yourself feel important. I think I can safely say that the only time either of those things is wrong is if you're not doing anything to make yourself a better person. So to quote Edward R. Murrow, "Good night, and good luck".
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Climbing the pyramid
I'm in a class right now that's supposed to teach people how to be successful, both in school and in life. That's all it's supposed to do: teach people success. In fact, the class is called Student Success. Today I realized that only two people in my class have the potential for such success, assuming that others don't get their act together. Only two. That leaves about 28 sets of dreams dashed like so many pieces of broken china upon the hardwood floor of life. I won't detail who those two are, since they aren't relevant to what I have to tell you.
I was speaking with my professor before leaving class today and he mentioned that he was nearly done with the subject material he wanted to cover by the end of the semester, bear in mind, the semester is less than halfway over. He said that there just isn't much to teach about success. He normally teaches economics, see; and in economics, there's more to teach than just supply and demand. There's also theory. In fact there's lots of it. It's kind of like philosophy. The core of philosophy is generally 'who(are we?), what(does it mean to be?), and why(are we here?)'. Now that's just philosophy in a nutshell. Imagine the obscene amounts of philosophical theory!
Success is much more cut and dry. To be successful, you must perform and achieve your very best. If you can't or won't do that, then success will be forever beyond your grasp. More than that though, you must constantly expand on what you can achieve. Some people claim that they tend to crack if expected to perform under the constant pressure of performing at their peak. That's fine. Every company needs cubicle meat, and those are the lazy bastards that fill that very mediocre part of the ecosystem. Since life is constant competition, you must achieve more and perform better than everyone else who wants what you want. Despite what your kindergarten teacher and therapist tells you, not everyone is a unique snowflake. You wanna be a multi-million dollar singer? You want to be a doctor? You wanna be a teacher? Tough cookies! Millions of people want just what you want and may, in fact, be better qualified to get what you want more than you are.
You want success? Well you gotta get more well rounded and versatile than the competition. You also have to realize that the other people who want what you want are being your friends because they're trying to see if you know something that they don't. If you want to play your cards close to the vest, that's fine. Understand though, that if you meet up with someone who has some grand dream in common with you, you should try and see if you can pry any loose bits of information from them, also. You have to keep an eye on those who have the same goals you do. One day you may find you and them at a job interview, and if they know your weak area, you can bet that they've got it covered. That's right, the friends you make filling out a job application aren't just being friendly because you and them have something in common...he's scoping out the competition.
Also, you must realize that if you want to succeed you must smash the competition. You're kindergarten teacher may have taught you that as long as everyone plays we all always win. Anyone who's watched the Olympics, even once knows that only one person walks away with the title "Best in the world at _____". Everyone else returns home ashamed to train for another four years. So your teacher was full of bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. In order to succeed, you must break some hearts. This means you will need to cause some hurt to others. For some of us, this might not be a problem (it might even be fun!), but many people raised in the bondage of conventional morality won't want to hurt anyone. And while it's true that we're all unique, we're not all special.
Finally, to win at life, you must know yourself. You might be thinking, 'hey I already know who I am, fuck you!' Well knowing your identity isn't the same as knowing who you are. You need to take your list of 'likes' and 'dislikes' and 'about me' sections and ask why you like or dislike them or why or how you are who you are. This tells you a little bit about your beliefs. From there, you need to ask yourself 'why' until there is nothing left to question. You also need to ask some very serious questions about yourself as a human being. This is much tougher than it sounds, since most people answer their own internal questions in a way that will avoid causing a negative self-image. I'll tell you now, if you ask yourself who you are and you like all the answers, you lied to yourself. I asked myself some very important questions about myself about a year ago ('What do I want?, What can I have?, Can I do more?' just to name a few) and I felt ashamed of myself and almost hated who I was. Now I know that I had only taken the first step on the road of success.
If someone hasn't told you already, I'm telling you now: Life is unfair. Life is made of hard work for pain when you'd rather just sit back and have a beer. I assume if you're reading this, you're looking for a profound truth. Well here it is: There is no secret to success, only a plan of action. If you want to succeed you must do nothing less than your best. You must also make sure that today's best is tomorrow's worst (in other words, constantly evolve). You also need to make sure you can do better than everyone around you. You must have the gravel in your guts to be able to smash the dreams of those who want what you want. Finally, and most importantly, you must know yourself. Now try filling up a whole semester with that and you'll see why I'm glad I'm not my teacher.
I was speaking with my professor before leaving class today and he mentioned that he was nearly done with the subject material he wanted to cover by the end of the semester, bear in mind, the semester is less than halfway over. He said that there just isn't much to teach about success. He normally teaches economics, see; and in economics, there's more to teach than just supply and demand. There's also theory. In fact there's lots of it. It's kind of like philosophy. The core of philosophy is generally 'who(are we?), what(does it mean to be?), and why(are we here?)'. Now that's just philosophy in a nutshell. Imagine the obscene amounts of philosophical theory!
Success is much more cut and dry. To be successful, you must perform and achieve your very best. If you can't or won't do that, then success will be forever beyond your grasp. More than that though, you must constantly expand on what you can achieve. Some people claim that they tend to crack if expected to perform under the constant pressure of performing at their peak. That's fine. Every company needs cubicle meat, and those are the lazy bastards that fill that very mediocre part of the ecosystem. Since life is constant competition, you must achieve more and perform better than everyone else who wants what you want. Despite what your kindergarten teacher and therapist tells you, not everyone is a unique snowflake. You wanna be a multi-million dollar singer? You want to be a doctor? You wanna be a teacher? Tough cookies! Millions of people want just what you want and may, in fact, be better qualified to get what you want more than you are.
You want success? Well you gotta get more well rounded and versatile than the competition. You also have to realize that the other people who want what you want are being your friends because they're trying to see if you know something that they don't. If you want to play your cards close to the vest, that's fine. Understand though, that if you meet up with someone who has some grand dream in common with you, you should try and see if you can pry any loose bits of information from them, also. You have to keep an eye on those who have the same goals you do. One day you may find you and them at a job interview, and if they know your weak area, you can bet that they've got it covered. That's right, the friends you make filling out a job application aren't just being friendly because you and them have something in common...he's scoping out the competition.
Also, you must realize that if you want to succeed you must smash the competition. You're kindergarten teacher may have taught you that as long as everyone plays we all always win. Anyone who's watched the Olympics, even once knows that only one person walks away with the title "Best in the world at _____". Everyone else returns home ashamed to train for another four years. So your teacher was full of bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. In order to succeed, you must break some hearts. This means you will need to cause some hurt to others. For some of us, this might not be a problem (it might even be fun!), but many people raised in the bondage of conventional morality won't want to hurt anyone. And while it's true that we're all unique, we're not all special.
Finally, to win at life, you must know yourself. You might be thinking, 'hey I already know who I am, fuck you!' Well knowing your identity isn't the same as knowing who you are. You need to take your list of 'likes' and 'dislikes' and 'about me' sections and ask why you like or dislike them or why or how you are who you are. This tells you a little bit about your beliefs. From there, you need to ask yourself 'why' until there is nothing left to question. You also need to ask some very serious questions about yourself as a human being. This is much tougher than it sounds, since most people answer their own internal questions in a way that will avoid causing a negative self-image. I'll tell you now, if you ask yourself who you are and you like all the answers, you lied to yourself. I asked myself some very important questions about myself about a year ago ('What do I want?, What can I have?, Can I do more?' just to name a few) and I felt ashamed of myself and almost hated who I was. Now I know that I had only taken the first step on the road of success.
If someone hasn't told you already, I'm telling you now: Life is unfair. Life is made of hard work for pain when you'd rather just sit back and have a beer. I assume if you're reading this, you're looking for a profound truth. Well here it is: There is no secret to success, only a plan of action. If you want to succeed you must do nothing less than your best. You must also make sure that today's best is tomorrow's worst (in other words, constantly evolve). You also need to make sure you can do better than everyone around you. You must have the gravel in your guts to be able to smash the dreams of those who want what you want. Finally, and most importantly, you must know yourself. Now try filling up a whole semester with that and you'll see why I'm glad I'm not my teacher.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Take the goat by the horns
An acquaintance of mine recently asked me "What has Satanism done for you?" Well I often find it hard to answer that question, largely because I find myself focusing on myself rather than my religious leanings. This evening though, an answer came to me as I was shaving; and so I share it with you, dear reader.
Satanism didn't do anything for me. Satanism is merely a religious philosophy. Like any religion, philosophy, or ideal it can't do anything by itself. It's like momentum: it can move things or people as long as there are things to be moved. To put it more succinctly, Satanism is a tool. It can't do anything for you any more than a gun can deliver unto you a dead deer or a wrench can fix your plumbing. These tools can do nothing on their own. They can only give you the means to do what you want them to. In other words, Satanism can't make you sexier or smarter or a better human being. Nor can it give you the motivation to do those things. What it can do is give you reasons to do all of those things yourself.
So then you might wonder 'How did you use Satanism to help yourself?' Well Satanism is a religion that encourages selfishness. Rather than concern yourself with others, you should wonder more about what you can make Satanism do for yourself. Asking what it does for someone else should be relatively obvious; it gave me the tools to make myself the person I am today. If you like the person I am or hate my guts, either one is fine. Do not misinterpret me though, the Church of Satan does not make someone into anything they are not already capable of being. In other words unless you're already an outstanding individual, Satanism won't make you into one. You should also never tread the Left Hand Path lightly. Embracing Satanism because your hero is or because the love of your life has will only end in your own troubles. Those are the actions of sycophantic followers, and the Church of Satan has no room for such people. If you know a Satanist though, and are intrigued by the thought of what you can make of yourself on that path...well that's a different story.
So to conclude. The simple answer to the above question is this: Satanism didn't do anything for me. It enlightened me as to why I should do things for myself. Also, if you're potentially Satanic material; you should focus less on me and more on yourself.
Satanism didn't do anything for me. Satanism is merely a religious philosophy. Like any religion, philosophy, or ideal it can't do anything by itself. It's like momentum: it can move things or people as long as there are things to be moved. To put it more succinctly, Satanism is a tool. It can't do anything for you any more than a gun can deliver unto you a dead deer or a wrench can fix your plumbing. These tools can do nothing on their own. They can only give you the means to do what you want them to. In other words, Satanism can't make you sexier or smarter or a better human being. Nor can it give you the motivation to do those things. What it can do is give you reasons to do all of those things yourself.
So then you might wonder 'How did you use Satanism to help yourself?' Well Satanism is a religion that encourages selfishness. Rather than concern yourself with others, you should wonder more about what you can make Satanism do for yourself. Asking what it does for someone else should be relatively obvious; it gave me the tools to make myself the person I am today. If you like the person I am or hate my guts, either one is fine. Do not misinterpret me though, the Church of Satan does not make someone into anything they are not already capable of being. In other words unless you're already an outstanding individual, Satanism won't make you into one. You should also never tread the Left Hand Path lightly. Embracing Satanism because your hero is or because the love of your life has will only end in your own troubles. Those are the actions of sycophantic followers, and the Church of Satan has no room for such people. If you know a Satanist though, and are intrigued by the thought of what you can make of yourself on that path...well that's a different story.
So to conclude. The simple answer to the above question is this: Satanism didn't do anything for me. It enlightened me as to why I should do things for myself. Also, if you're potentially Satanic material; you should focus less on me and more on yourself.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Social Slavery
A common buzzword in use today is "Political Correctness". It's a silly concept really. You can't not minimize anyone all the time. Anytime you praise yourself, you immediately minimize everyone surrounding you. If you state that you prefer any culture over another, you're being politically incorrect. There's no escaping it.
I won't excuse those who go about intentionally insulting other races, cultures, ideas, policies or behaviors. But I will excuse their right to do so. That's our right to free speech. Unfortunately, not hurting peoples' delicate sensibilities seems to trump our freedoms. Mass media is beating our constitution to a pulp. Just how sad is that?
Mass media has put people into a position where we are vilified for having opinions that differ from others. This means that while you're still entitled to your First Amendment right, you will become a social pariah for exercising it. This is because inevitably there would be someone who feels offended by your opinion. No matter what you say, your hands are tied by political correctness.
What's more ridiculous is the fact that political correctness has no use to the common man. Look at that first word there: political. I could see political correctness being useful or even necessary if I were (just off the top of my head) a politician. But I'm not. There's no demographic I need to target or suck up to. Hence it's useless.
So keep this in mind: Every time you say 'people of color' or 'African-American' you may be sparing the feelings of some pansy black man, but you're also being the victim of the Thought Police. So exercise your First Amendment right, you can't possibly protect everyone around you. Trying to do so shows that you are only a slave trained by society at large. If you would be free you must throw off the shackles of political correctness. If you want to be politically correct, then you should just take a vow of silence.
-Hail,
Wormwood
I won't excuse those who go about intentionally insulting other races, cultures, ideas, policies or behaviors. But I will excuse their right to do so. That's our right to free speech. Unfortunately, not hurting peoples' delicate sensibilities seems to trump our freedoms. Mass media is beating our constitution to a pulp. Just how sad is that?
Mass media has put people into a position where we are vilified for having opinions that differ from others. This means that while you're still entitled to your First Amendment right, you will become a social pariah for exercising it. This is because inevitably there would be someone who feels offended by your opinion. No matter what you say, your hands are tied by political correctness.
What's more ridiculous is the fact that political correctness has no use to the common man. Look at that first word there: political. I could see political correctness being useful or even necessary if I were (just off the top of my head) a politician. But I'm not. There's no demographic I need to target or suck up to. Hence it's useless.
So keep this in mind: Every time you say 'people of color' or 'African-American' you may be sparing the feelings of some pansy black man, but you're also being the victim of the Thought Police. So exercise your First Amendment right, you can't possibly protect everyone around you. Trying to do so shows that you are only a slave trained by society at large. If you would be free you must throw off the shackles of political correctness. If you want to be politically correct, then you should just take a vow of silence.
-Hail,
Wormwood
Monday, January 25, 2010
Misery loves company
Misery visits all of us in our own time. Lets face it, happiness and fulfillment are impossible to feel 100% of the time. Such despondency can actually be fought off though. Mainly misery can be avoided by always finding something to accomplish or learn. It could be fought off by reading a new book, or cooking a new recipe, or spending time with a pet. Those always work for me. People only feel miserable because they allow themselves to.
It is said that misery loves company. I'm of the belief that this phrase was coined by those miserable people who spent as much time around others as they could, so they could spread to others the despair that they, themselves, felt. That being said one must always make an effort to avoid those afflicted with misery. You let a miserable friend in to comfort them and by the time they leave they'll have you contemplating a suicide pact. I know, I make it sound like a disease, right? Well it is. Misery is an emotional disease. Misery is an emotional black hole which sucks in productivity, strength and joy and spits out dependency, weakness and any negative emotion you'd rather not be feeling.
And believe it or not, the miserable are not to be blamed for this. They're just carriers. Plague dogs infected at the source. There isn't only one source of this epidemic either, that's why it's so scary. It can come from the media in the form of standards of beauty that are impossible to live up to. It can come from performance at work that remains un-recognized. The reasons are varied. The cure can be even more so.
Misery is an emotional disease, as I've already established. So the only way to get rid of it is an emotional cure. I mentioned learning something new. I also mentioned spending time with a beloved pet (not necessarily a non-human one). Nearly anything that can remind you of your self-worth can blow away the blues (not the music). However, it must remain said that no one can do this for you. If you weren't aware of that self-worth before, it's going to be even more difficult finding a reason to feel good about yourself and your life. These are primarily the people who end up losing all hope and looping a rope around their neck.
So keep in mind, that misery comes to us all. But only the strong brush it off like an annoying case of the common cold. The weak will carry it with them everywhere and spread it around just to validate their own feelings of worthlessness and try to make others feel as bad (or worse than) themselves. The weak despair of even making something of themselves or solving their problems. The strong will never question the purpose of their lives. The weak will question whether there even is a purpose. Just remember, everyone's life has problems, but all problems are fixable.
It is said that misery loves company. I'm of the belief that this phrase was coined by those miserable people who spent as much time around others as they could, so they could spread to others the despair that they, themselves, felt. That being said one must always make an effort to avoid those afflicted with misery. You let a miserable friend in to comfort them and by the time they leave they'll have you contemplating a suicide pact. I know, I make it sound like a disease, right? Well it is. Misery is an emotional disease. Misery is an emotional black hole which sucks in productivity, strength and joy and spits out dependency, weakness and any negative emotion you'd rather not be feeling.
And believe it or not, the miserable are not to be blamed for this. They're just carriers. Plague dogs infected at the source. There isn't only one source of this epidemic either, that's why it's so scary. It can come from the media in the form of standards of beauty that are impossible to live up to. It can come from performance at work that remains un-recognized. The reasons are varied. The cure can be even more so.
Misery is an emotional disease, as I've already established. So the only way to get rid of it is an emotional cure. I mentioned learning something new. I also mentioned spending time with a beloved pet (not necessarily a non-human one). Nearly anything that can remind you of your self-worth can blow away the blues (not the music). However, it must remain said that no one can do this for you. If you weren't aware of that self-worth before, it's going to be even more difficult finding a reason to feel good about yourself and your life. These are primarily the people who end up losing all hope and looping a rope around their neck.
So keep in mind, that misery comes to us all. But only the strong brush it off like an annoying case of the common cold. The weak will carry it with them everywhere and spread it around just to validate their own feelings of worthlessness and try to make others feel as bad (or worse than) themselves. The weak despair of even making something of themselves or solving their problems. The strong will never question the purpose of their lives. The weak will question whether there even is a purpose. Just remember, everyone's life has problems, but all problems are fixable.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Way of the Left Hand Buddha.
I might go out on a limb and say that many people on the Left Hand Path are consumed by hate of some sort. I know I was. I used to hate theists of any sort. Didn't matter if they were poly- or mono- theistic. Whether they were pagan or Abrahamic, it didn't matter to me. I hated any one who worshiped any external spiritual force. Looking back on it, I'm not sure why. I think I just told myself that it was because I didn't like their voluntary self-slavery, or because they couldn't think of their own beliefs, but had to have their opinions dictated to them. Though it occurs to me as I write this, Atheists can't really think of their own beliefs either. So they don't bother to believe in anything. I think I might have just been filled with a shiftless hatred because maybe I thought it gave me some kind of drive.
It took me some time to realize that Satanism gave me a greater purpose: myself. People who followed a religion that worshiped some kind of god or spirit didn't have the same purpose I did. Some people are just too humble to be self-serving. So without themselves or a god to give them purpose, many people turn to theistic religion to give them greater reason to exist. I realized a little while back that this was actually more pitiable than it was infuriating. The only reason I hated them was because I was being xenophobic, and hating anyone who was not like me. Some people hate other people for various reasons. But let me ask: If you took all the energy you expend just hating others and instead focused it on the achievement of your goals or maybe showing your love to those who deserve it, how much more fulfilling do you think your life could be?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm no peace loving hippie! There are those I hate with a blinding rage. There are some who inspire such anger in me, that I literally don't know what to do with myself. But I can avoid this if I want to, though not if I need to. Even when I find myself surrounded by those I hate, I find that if I just ignore them they don't bother me. It's when they choose to trouble me and decline my request to be left in peace, that I find myself stirred into anger.
And there's another thing people often forget. There is a difference between anger and hate, everyone. Because I love quoting from the dictionary, here's the difference between the two:
Anger
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, affliction, anger, from Old Norse angr grief; akin to Old English enge narrow, Latin angere to strangle, Greek anchein
Date: 14th century
1 : a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
2 : rage.
Seems pretty basic, right? Well here's anger's evil twin.
Hate
Pronunciation: \ˈhāt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
Date: before 12th century
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing
2 : an object of hatred.
They seem pretty similar don't they?
Well I can say this. The definition of hate implies anger taken to it's extreme. I think it was the Greeks who coined the phrase "Everything in moderation". So taking anger to it's extreme until it becomes hatred doesn't really help anybody does it?
I won't say that your life will be better if you just let go of your hate. It's impossible to do just one thing which, on it's own, improves the quality of your life. It is entirely possible though to let go of that hate. I will tell you this, though: since I've let go of my unconditional hatred, I feel as though a huge burden has been lifted from my life. I for one have found that tranquility is much more preferable to impotent rage. Because when you hate a portion of the whole world and you're unable to do anything about it, what does that accomplish? Maybe you find it gives you focus for your goals. However, like theism, that focus is external. Eventually you find yourself a slave to that hatred, all your actions are motivated by it. Before you realize it, that hate becomes your god.
One need not pursue Zen to feel peace. Nor must you smoke pot or forsake physical possessions. But it helps if you start looking at that which you hate as being beneath your notice. Letting go of one's hate is not as easy as dropping a suitcase. But it is as easy as neglecting that which you find distasteful.
It took me some time to realize that Satanism gave me a greater purpose: myself. People who followed a religion that worshiped some kind of god or spirit didn't have the same purpose I did. Some people are just too humble to be self-serving. So without themselves or a god to give them purpose, many people turn to theistic religion to give them greater reason to exist. I realized a little while back that this was actually more pitiable than it was infuriating. The only reason I hated them was because I was being xenophobic, and hating anyone who was not like me. Some people hate other people for various reasons. But let me ask: If you took all the energy you expend just hating others and instead focused it on the achievement of your goals or maybe showing your love to those who deserve it, how much more fulfilling do you think your life could be?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm no peace loving hippie! There are those I hate with a blinding rage. There are some who inspire such anger in me, that I literally don't know what to do with myself. But I can avoid this if I want to, though not if I need to. Even when I find myself surrounded by those I hate, I find that if I just ignore them they don't bother me. It's when they choose to trouble me and decline my request to be left in peace, that I find myself stirred into anger.
And there's another thing people often forget. There is a difference between anger and hate, everyone. Because I love quoting from the dictionary, here's the difference between the two:
Anger
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, affliction, anger, from Old Norse angr grief; akin to Old English enge narrow, Latin angere to strangle, Greek anchein
Date: 14th century
1 : a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
2 : rage.
Seems pretty basic, right? Well here's anger's evil twin.
Hate
Pronunciation: \ˈhāt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
Date: before 12th century
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing
2 : an object of hatred.
They seem pretty similar don't they?
Well I can say this. The definition of hate implies anger taken to it's extreme. I think it was the Greeks who coined the phrase "Everything in moderation". So taking anger to it's extreme until it becomes hatred doesn't really help anybody does it?
I won't say that your life will be better if you just let go of your hate. It's impossible to do just one thing which, on it's own, improves the quality of your life. It is entirely possible though to let go of that hate. I will tell you this, though: since I've let go of my unconditional hatred, I feel as though a huge burden has been lifted from my life. I for one have found that tranquility is much more preferable to impotent rage. Because when you hate a portion of the whole world and you're unable to do anything about it, what does that accomplish? Maybe you find it gives you focus for your goals. However, like theism, that focus is external. Eventually you find yourself a slave to that hatred, all your actions are motivated by it. Before you realize it, that hate becomes your god.
One need not pursue Zen to feel peace. Nor must you smoke pot or forsake physical possessions. But it helps if you start looking at that which you hate as being beneath your notice. Letting go of one's hate is not as easy as dropping a suitcase. But it is as easy as neglecting that which you find distasteful.
Monday, January 18, 2010
One man's tragedy is irrelevant to me
I recently made a statement that went something like this: "Life is tough. The strong deal with it in their own way. The weak strive to make their difficulties the problems of the strong." The funny thing is that if the weak stopped wasting all the effort they expend trying to hoist their problems onto others, and instead used it to solve their own problems, they could be strong too. Yet they don't. We seem to live in a world where the victim is valued more than those who take care of themselves. Why is it so great to be incapable and dependent on others?
A natural disaster recently befell a certain country. There was an incredibly high death toll, and people are still suffering difficulties from it. For all intents and purposes this is a third world country. Half the country is illiterate. Nothing of irreplaceable value comes from this place. So this natural disaster (in this case, an earthquake) takes place and suddenly the world takes notice.
An especially interesting fact is that now that this country has been struck with hard ship, we suddenly take pity on them and send them money for things they had little to none of. Suddenly clean water and medical care is available here. Much of it from the United States. Funny how they were a poor and broke down slum of a nation for over a century, and no one cared. The death toll in this country has always been pretty high due to poor health care (about 30,000 people per year are afflicted with Malaria). I find it strange how the leaders of said nation have either done nothing to develop a stable economy for their country or have tried and failed to do so. Now the leaders of this country will go down in history as the one(s) who got their "proud nation through this time of trials". The people who survived the quake are being praised as strong and courageous. So they're praised for not dying from something they didn't know was going to happen? Yeah well I flew a kite in a hurricane! What does that say about me! How great am I for knowing what I was getting into?
It must also be said that this country is not a developing nation. They are not developing. No progress has been made by this country to improve it's existence (efforts, maybe, but no progress). In fact, the quality of life for this place may have even gotten worse over the years. The really sad thing is that 80% of the people in this country who are college educated, emigrate to the United States. So the people who could improve it actually choose not to. So that means that this nation is left weakened by the people currently populating or who used to populate it.
So, we've established that this certain nation is weak, and that nature has pummeled the hell out of it. What do they do now? Well they never quite had the facilities to help themselves even before the earthquake, so it stands to reason they don't have the resources necessary to clean up the damage now. Thankfully we have the media to pass the buck onto the U.S. government. No, really! That's just fine that we're now expected to take care of places that were never even stable in the first place. That's kind of like paying to fix up a dilapidated old house, and then doing nothing with it. That right there is an investment with zero chance of return. But yet it's our responsibility to look after places where "tragedy" strikes. Odd.
Some might say that the whole incident is tragic because so many people died. That's a damn joke. People are killed in large numbers every day, and no one says jack. There are three reasons for this.
1.) When people get thrown in mass graves in S. America or Africa (a daily occurrence, I assure you), there isn't always a reporter to catch it on video, and people only know about current events via the media. But just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2.) Another reason people are sitting up and taking notice is because natural disasters of this magnitude don't happen every day. Every once in a while though, you get a massive tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake and everyone's interested. People like to hear about things that don't happen often....I'm not sure why.
3.) This disaster happened practically right in our back yard. The Caribbean (where this disaster took place) is technically a part of N. America. Since N. America is part of the continent that we (American citizens) live in we feel that it's relevant to our lives, and so should feel bad or otherwise have an opinion.
I'll tell you folks: I've never been to this country. I've never wanted to. I don't know anyone from there, or who ever has been there. I've been aware of this place and it's horrendous poverty since I was in the fourth grade. I didn't care about it then, and haven't since. I don't care what anyone says; if they were a strong nation with strong people, they'd be able to recover from this problem on their own. As it is, I don't see how the earthquake that hit them is the United States' problem, or the tax-payers' for that matter.
A natural disaster recently befell a certain country. There was an incredibly high death toll, and people are still suffering difficulties from it. For all intents and purposes this is a third world country. Half the country is illiterate. Nothing of irreplaceable value comes from this place. So this natural disaster (in this case, an earthquake) takes place and suddenly the world takes notice.
An especially interesting fact is that now that this country has been struck with hard ship, we suddenly take pity on them and send them money for things they had little to none of. Suddenly clean water and medical care is available here. Much of it from the United States. Funny how they were a poor and broke down slum of a nation for over a century, and no one cared. The death toll in this country has always been pretty high due to poor health care (about 30,000 people per year are afflicted with Malaria). I find it strange how the leaders of said nation have either done nothing to develop a stable economy for their country or have tried and failed to do so. Now the leaders of this country will go down in history as the one(s) who got their "proud nation through this time of trials". The people who survived the quake are being praised as strong and courageous. So they're praised for not dying from something they didn't know was going to happen? Yeah well I flew a kite in a hurricane! What does that say about me! How great am I for knowing what I was getting into?
It must also be said that this country is not a developing nation. They are not developing. No progress has been made by this country to improve it's existence (efforts, maybe, but no progress). In fact, the quality of life for this place may have even gotten worse over the years. The really sad thing is that 80% of the people in this country who are college educated, emigrate to the United States. So the people who could improve it actually choose not to. So that means that this nation is left weakened by the people currently populating or who used to populate it.
So, we've established that this certain nation is weak, and that nature has pummeled the hell out of it. What do they do now? Well they never quite had the facilities to help themselves even before the earthquake, so it stands to reason they don't have the resources necessary to clean up the damage now. Thankfully we have the media to pass the buck onto the U.S. government. No, really! That's just fine that we're now expected to take care of places that were never even stable in the first place. That's kind of like paying to fix up a dilapidated old house, and then doing nothing with it. That right there is an investment with zero chance of return. But yet it's our responsibility to look after places where "tragedy" strikes. Odd.
Some might say that the whole incident is tragic because so many people died. That's a damn joke. People are killed in large numbers every day, and no one says jack. There are three reasons for this.
1.) When people get thrown in mass graves in S. America or Africa (a daily occurrence, I assure you), there isn't always a reporter to catch it on video, and people only know about current events via the media. But just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2.) Another reason people are sitting up and taking notice is because natural disasters of this magnitude don't happen every day. Every once in a while though, you get a massive tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake and everyone's interested. People like to hear about things that don't happen often....I'm not sure why.
3.) This disaster happened practically right in our back yard. The Caribbean (where this disaster took place) is technically a part of N. America. Since N. America is part of the continent that we (American citizens) live in we feel that it's relevant to our lives, and so should feel bad or otherwise have an opinion.
I'll tell you folks: I've never been to this country. I've never wanted to. I don't know anyone from there, or who ever has been there. I've been aware of this place and it's horrendous poverty since I was in the fourth grade. I didn't care about it then, and haven't since. I don't care what anyone says; if they were a strong nation with strong people, they'd be able to recover from this problem on their own. As it is, I don't see how the earthquake that hit them is the United States' problem, or the tax-payers' for that matter.
Lords of Creation
Here's a thought. Humans are a part of the Animal Kingdom. More specifically, we belong in the following categories:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens.
So there you have it. Humans are animals. Not only that, we are a part of only one (out of 5) kingdom. Yet we carry ourselves with some inflated sense of self-importance. Why is that? Is it because of our intelligence? Well that's simply evolutionary. Creatures evolve different survival mechanisms. That's why there's so few creatures that hunt elephants. Because they travel in groups, and are so big and heavy, it's hard to catch them off guard and kill them in conventional ways for lions, hyenas, crocodiles, etc. Evolution gave them just what they needed to thrive, and serve their part in the ecosystem.
Now why is it, that when we humans refer to the world at large we like to separate ourselves from animals. Everyone does this. Everyone. We all see the world in terms of 'people' and 'animals'. Some people say it's due to our intelligence. That seems kind of backward as we seem just intelligent enough to know what behaviors will do damage to our species (both individuals and the collective) and ecosystem. Yet we seem just stupid enough to engage in these behaviors anyway. Murder and war are two of my favorite examples, since they are unique to primates (and the former to humans only). Some people will scoff at this and say that animals kill other animals all the time. This is true; lions kill hyenas, both of them kill water buffalo, and hippos will kill anything that invades it's personal space (make no mistake, hippos will fuck your shit up). All this inter-species fighting though, is for food, survival, or the establishment of feeding territory. Even then, the most killing that takes place between different species is when a carnivore is hunting, since a successful hunt, by definition, must end with the death of the prey in question.
But contrary to popular belief, intra-species killings rarely take place. It's true, animals fight all the time. Sometimes this is for dominance, sometimes for mating privileges, and for a whole slew of other reasons. But this rarely ends in the death of said animals. They only fight until it can be clearly determined who the stronger one is, then the weaker creature often submits. Most creatures understand that needlessly killing does nothing to further the species, and so rarely engage in such. Humans, however either generally don't understand this or don't care.
Now I am all in favor of Darwinism, but not to the extant that I would kill someone just because he is weaker than I am. I seem just smart enough to know that if anybody is contributing something to my society and I exterminate him/her then I rob my tribe (see: family, friends, city, etc) of whatever my victim was providing. Furthermore; I understand that if I do harm to my tribe, then in the long run I do harm to myself.
So how is it that the whole of the Animal Kingdom seems smart enough to thrive in every respect except where humanity enters as a variable? We're the smartest terrestrial creatures in the Animal Kingdom today. We have the ability to understand and create abstract concepts like mathematics, art, agriculture, and philosophy. We even have the mental faculties to make our environment adapt to our presence, a trait which seems unique to humanity. So why is it, if we're so evolved, that we destroy everything we touch?
It's all a frightening concept to consider. There seems to be no solution that doesn't appear bleak and horrific. If I'm mistaken, though, please tell me how.
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens.
So there you have it. Humans are animals. Not only that, we are a part of only one (out of 5) kingdom. Yet we carry ourselves with some inflated sense of self-importance. Why is that? Is it because of our intelligence? Well that's simply evolutionary. Creatures evolve different survival mechanisms. That's why there's so few creatures that hunt elephants. Because they travel in groups, and are so big and heavy, it's hard to catch them off guard and kill them in conventional ways for lions, hyenas, crocodiles, etc. Evolution gave them just what they needed to thrive, and serve their part in the ecosystem.
Now why is it, that when we humans refer to the world at large we like to separate ourselves from animals. Everyone does this. Everyone. We all see the world in terms of 'people' and 'animals'. Some people say it's due to our intelligence. That seems kind of backward as we seem just intelligent enough to know what behaviors will do damage to our species (both individuals and the collective) and ecosystem. Yet we seem just stupid enough to engage in these behaviors anyway. Murder and war are two of my favorite examples, since they are unique to primates (and the former to humans only). Some people will scoff at this and say that animals kill other animals all the time. This is true; lions kill hyenas, both of them kill water buffalo, and hippos will kill anything that invades it's personal space (make no mistake, hippos will fuck your shit up). All this inter-species fighting though, is for food, survival, or the establishment of feeding territory. Even then, the most killing that takes place between different species is when a carnivore is hunting, since a successful hunt, by definition, must end with the death of the prey in question.
But contrary to popular belief, intra-species killings rarely take place. It's true, animals fight all the time. Sometimes this is for dominance, sometimes for mating privileges, and for a whole slew of other reasons. But this rarely ends in the death of said animals. They only fight until it can be clearly determined who the stronger one is, then the weaker creature often submits. Most creatures understand that needlessly killing does nothing to further the species, and so rarely engage in such. Humans, however either generally don't understand this or don't care.
Now I am all in favor of Darwinism, but not to the extant that I would kill someone just because he is weaker than I am. I seem just smart enough to know that if anybody is contributing something to my society and I exterminate him/her then I rob my tribe (see: family, friends, city, etc) of whatever my victim was providing. Furthermore; I understand that if I do harm to my tribe, then in the long run I do harm to myself.
So how is it that the whole of the Animal Kingdom seems smart enough to thrive in every respect except where humanity enters as a variable? We're the smartest terrestrial creatures in the Animal Kingdom today. We have the ability to understand and create abstract concepts like mathematics, art, agriculture, and philosophy. We even have the mental faculties to make our environment adapt to our presence, a trait which seems unique to humanity. So why is it, if we're so evolved, that we destroy everything we touch?
It's all a frightening concept to consider. There seems to be no solution that doesn't appear bleak and horrific. If I'm mistaken, though, please tell me how.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Goals
Goals. We all have them. While some may seem incredibly stupid, they help keep us from stagnating. The question is how do you put a quantifiable limit on your hopes and desires? I was recently asked to write down my goals for after I graduate from college. Which college? Community college? Under-graduate college? Or maybe Graduate School? That wasn't much of a problem really. The problem was that I felt like I was asked to write down my soul (if there is such a thing) and commit it to paper. Despite what anyone else tells you, you can tell a lot about a person by the goals they want to achieve. People that want to be a doctor, for example, want to make a lot of money and/or want to help people. You get a good feel for personality, but not so much for aptitude.
My problem, though, was that my goals are numerous. And the things you can learn about me from my goals do not speak well to the quality of my character. I want to own my own veterinary practice. You might think that I want to help all the cute fuzzy animals and blah blah blah. This is not the case, though. I want to enter the medical field, like my mother and sister before me. However, I have no desire whatever to help people. In fact, most people I encounter, I don't really like. I want to own my own practice, because I want people to call me 'sir'. I want my employees to know that I hold their livelihoods in my hands, and to be able to hire or fire people. I want minions to do my bidding. And that bidding isn't to help people, but to help the animals our ancestors have domesticated. This is taking responsibility for our actions. Now, anyone reading this might think that I'm an asshole or a bad person, and they're probably right. I'm not really concerned with the opinions of people who don't hold control over my life, though.
Don't get me wrong, I do want to help animals. But not because I want to save Bambi's mom. Mostly, my concern for the Animal Kingdom is because animals don't manifest the sort of behaviors that humans do. Guilt, religion, war, politics, compassion, beauty, fear; all of these are foreign to the rest of the Kingdom in which we belong. Animals eat when they're hungry, they fight to preserve the natural order which keeps them alive, they sleep when they're tired, they fornicate when they're secure enough to raise offspring, they migrate or hibernate when food is scarce. It's all as simple as that. That's not enough for humanity though. Our goal seems to be to find and pursue a higher reason for life.
This is where the joke is on us. Survival, like the pursuit of power, is it's own purpose. It does not need to be justified, because it is the justification which we seek. So we create all these complex concepts, and make a simple reason complicated. We go to war, and we say to ourselves 'These enemies believe something different than us, so we must do honor and praise to our god by destroying and converting our enemies' or 'this country is attacking this other country and that's wrong'. Why not just admit 'We see our enemies as a threat to our continued existence, so we are attacking them' or 'this country has some resource or territory that we need/want for our continued success, so we are going to war with them'? It would certainly be more honest, if not much easier to understand.
The point is, we have a tendency to obfuscate our goals. if not from each other, then definitely from ourselves. If you truly wish to understand yourself, then you must ask yourself why you do what you do. Why do you want what you desire? Then when you discover the answers to those questions, investigate the roots of them. I think most of you will discover those roots to be the desire to live and thrive. Once you've realized that, then you're one step closer to becoming one with the animals from whom we descend.
My problem, though, was that my goals are numerous. And the things you can learn about me from my goals do not speak well to the quality of my character. I want to own my own veterinary practice. You might think that I want to help all the cute fuzzy animals and blah blah blah. This is not the case, though. I want to enter the medical field, like my mother and sister before me. However, I have no desire whatever to help people. In fact, most people I encounter, I don't really like. I want to own my own practice, because I want people to call me 'sir'. I want my employees to know that I hold their livelihoods in my hands, and to be able to hire or fire people. I want minions to do my bidding. And that bidding isn't to help people, but to help the animals our ancestors have domesticated. This is taking responsibility for our actions. Now, anyone reading this might think that I'm an asshole or a bad person, and they're probably right. I'm not really concerned with the opinions of people who don't hold control over my life, though.
Don't get me wrong, I do want to help animals. But not because I want to save Bambi's mom. Mostly, my concern for the Animal Kingdom is because animals don't manifest the sort of behaviors that humans do. Guilt, religion, war, politics, compassion, beauty, fear; all of these are foreign to the rest of the Kingdom in which we belong. Animals eat when they're hungry, they fight to preserve the natural order which keeps them alive, they sleep when they're tired, they fornicate when they're secure enough to raise offspring, they migrate or hibernate when food is scarce. It's all as simple as that. That's not enough for humanity though. Our goal seems to be to find and pursue a higher reason for life.
This is where the joke is on us. Survival, like the pursuit of power, is it's own purpose. It does not need to be justified, because it is the justification which we seek. So we create all these complex concepts, and make a simple reason complicated. We go to war, and we say to ourselves 'These enemies believe something different than us, so we must do honor and praise to our god by destroying and converting our enemies' or 'this country is attacking this other country and that's wrong'. Why not just admit 'We see our enemies as a threat to our continued existence, so we are attacking them' or 'this country has some resource or territory that we need/want for our continued success, so we are going to war with them'? It would certainly be more honest, if not much easier to understand.
The point is, we have a tendency to obfuscate our goals. if not from each other, then definitely from ourselves. If you truly wish to understand yourself, then you must ask yourself why you do what you do. Why do you want what you desire? Then when you discover the answers to those questions, investigate the roots of them. I think most of you will discover those roots to be the desire to live and thrive. Once you've realized that, then you're one step closer to becoming one with the animals from whom we descend.
Monday, January 4, 2010
New Years means new hurts...learn to love it
Happy New Years to all (in all likelihood) ZERO of you actually reading this. Today we will cover something that everyone thinks about sometime: Morality.
Mirriam-Webster defines Morality as " 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : virtue ".
All of this is, of course, contingent on what exactly the word 'moral' means. Now of course we all have an unconscious understanding of what the word entails, but for the sake of argument lets just formalize it here; "1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action "
Wowzers! That's a lot of unnecessary words for such a simple concept, huh? I bet if I'd have asked you (or any other layperson for that matter) what Morality is, you'd say something along the lines of "Doing what is Right or Good as opposed to doing Wrong or Evil". Am I wrong?
Anyway, everyone (or at least most of us) tries to be moral. And why shouldn't we? It feels good to be good. It gives us a feeling of greater purpose to give some money or food to the homeless or donate to a charity. It feels as though we are less beholden to our jobs or families, and more in tune with some benign spiritual force. But then, it feels even better to be moral within the boundaries of comfort or convenience doesn't it? When was the last time you literally gave the shirt off of your back? No one empties out the entirety of their wallet to anyone they don't think will pay them back. No one gives everything they have to those in need. Why not? Certainly if there is a god, he would bless yo greatly for your generosity. Or perhaps curse your selfishness. Yes, people give of themselves, but only because it gives them a sense of meaning, and meaning feels good. Let me tell you what feels even better than giving of yourself to others.
Giving of yourself to yourself. Let me let you in on a little secret. It's the reason I sometimes give something to a beggar. Every time you give them something, they feel ashamed. They feel like in return for your help they are having a bit of their dignity and self-respect ripped from them. They may feel like they owe you something, and of course they can't repay it, so that just makes them feel worse. Your morality and your charity dehumanizes them. So why not take that ten-spot you were going to give to some broken down hobo, and instead give it to someone who will actually appreciate it, and you, for your kindness? Get a six-pack and share it with a friend. That way you both get something and no one feels put out or looked down on.
We all do little "random acts of kindness" to convince ourselves that we (as individuals) are inherently good. We also do that because we're taught to, and routines are hard to break. But mostly we're doing moral things for our own peace of mind. Many people believe that if we act moral and other people act moral, we will all be safe. The fact is that this way of thought can get you eff-ing killed. The fact that we are expected to do good and expect that same behavior from others is, in fact, enabling those who would walk all over you to do just that. The mugger in the alley knows many people don't just go about with weapons on them at all times. This is because many people think that everyone not only knows the difference between right and wrong, but also concerns themselves with it. So why the need to arm themselves? And so the brutish thief knows that he can hold you up in relative safety, because you didn't expect anyone to so blatantly disregard what is right and threaten your life to steal your valuables.
So, in a sense morality actually does more to serve the immoral. Ironic, some would say; even surprising. There's a phrase most people learn in their youth that goes 'When someone slaps you across the cheek, turn the other cheek'. Another saying (known as the Golden Rule) is to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. So these two sayings which supposedly encourage virtue, rob people of their self-assertion, and empower those who they call the wicked.
No other creature on earth acts this way, save man. This indicates that said behavior is unnatural. Hence this moral behavior is an abomination. Even in a work environment, if you restrain yourself with moral actions, you are not working to the best of your potential.
Now, dear reader, this is not to make you banish whatever system of morality you follow. But maybe you should follow what you feel, rather than what you are taught you feel. It's tough to tell the difference at first. It requires a lot of inner reflection. You may discover that you like to feel good, or like you've accomplished something. Maybe you need to find or create a system of morality that doesn't make you feel enslaved. I can't tell you what you really need. Only you can do that dear reader. But the next time you perform a "Random Act of Kindness" ask yourself, 'am I being a unique individual, or a tool for someone else's beliefs?'
The answer may shock and horrify you. But they say that the truth hurts.
Mirriam-Webster defines Morality as " 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : virtue ".
All of this is, of course, contingent on what exactly the word 'moral' means. Now of course we all have an unconscious understanding of what the word entails, but for the sake of argument lets just formalize it here; "1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action "
Wowzers! That's a lot of unnecessary words for such a simple concept, huh? I bet if I'd have asked you (or any other layperson for that matter) what Morality is, you'd say something along the lines of "Doing what is Right or Good as opposed to doing Wrong or Evil". Am I wrong?
Anyway, everyone (or at least most of us) tries to be moral. And why shouldn't we? It feels good to be good. It gives us a feeling of greater purpose to give some money or food to the homeless or donate to a charity. It feels as though we are less beholden to our jobs or families, and more in tune with some benign spiritual force. But then, it feels even better to be moral within the boundaries of comfort or convenience doesn't it? When was the last time you literally gave the shirt off of your back? No one empties out the entirety of their wallet to anyone they don't think will pay them back. No one gives everything they have to those in need. Why not? Certainly if there is a god, he would bless yo greatly for your generosity. Or perhaps curse your selfishness. Yes, people give of themselves, but only because it gives them a sense of meaning, and meaning feels good. Let me tell you what feels even better than giving of yourself to others.
Giving of yourself to yourself. Let me let you in on a little secret. It's the reason I sometimes give something to a beggar. Every time you give them something, they feel ashamed. They feel like in return for your help they are having a bit of their dignity and self-respect ripped from them. They may feel like they owe you something, and of course they can't repay it, so that just makes them feel worse. Your morality and your charity dehumanizes them. So why not take that ten-spot you were going to give to some broken down hobo, and instead give it to someone who will actually appreciate it, and you, for your kindness? Get a six-pack and share it with a friend. That way you both get something and no one feels put out or looked down on.
We all do little "random acts of kindness" to convince ourselves that we (as individuals) are inherently good. We also do that because we're taught to, and routines are hard to break. But mostly we're doing moral things for our own peace of mind. Many people believe that if we act moral and other people act moral, we will all be safe. The fact is that this way of thought can get you eff-ing killed. The fact that we are expected to do good and expect that same behavior from others is, in fact, enabling those who would walk all over you to do just that. The mugger in the alley knows many people don't just go about with weapons on them at all times. This is because many people think that everyone not only knows the difference between right and wrong, but also concerns themselves with it. So why the need to arm themselves? And so the brutish thief knows that he can hold you up in relative safety, because you didn't expect anyone to so blatantly disregard what is right and threaten your life to steal your valuables.
So, in a sense morality actually does more to serve the immoral. Ironic, some would say; even surprising. There's a phrase most people learn in their youth that goes 'When someone slaps you across the cheek, turn the other cheek'. Another saying (known as the Golden Rule) is to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. So these two sayings which supposedly encourage virtue, rob people of their self-assertion, and empower those who they call the wicked.
No other creature on earth acts this way, save man. This indicates that said behavior is unnatural. Hence this moral behavior is an abomination. Even in a work environment, if you restrain yourself with moral actions, you are not working to the best of your potential.
Now, dear reader, this is not to make you banish whatever system of morality you follow. But maybe you should follow what you feel, rather than what you are taught you feel. It's tough to tell the difference at first. It requires a lot of inner reflection. You may discover that you like to feel good, or like you've accomplished something. Maybe you need to find or create a system of morality that doesn't make you feel enslaved. I can't tell you what you really need. Only you can do that dear reader. But the next time you perform a "Random Act of Kindness" ask yourself, 'am I being a unique individual, or a tool for someone else's beliefs?'
The answer may shock and horrify you. But they say that the truth hurts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
