30 May 2014
Every creature on this Earth dies alone.
Donnie: Well, life isn't that simple. I mean, who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
More personal-preferences-cum-objective-statement-about-life going on in this post. I promise it will have some sort of point that can be more generalizable though - promise. But who the fuck am I kidding? It's all just some bullshit, right?
One of my favorite movies is Donnie Darko. I guess at face value, a viewer might say that it is about time travel: by anticipating a horrible end for various people, Donnie sacrifices his own life to save those of ones he loves. For those who haven't seen it, throughout the movie, it is alluded to that Donnie has "issues" and that his perceptions of the world are warped (and wrong). Maybe he does, but like the point he's making above, does that really matter as much as we think? We'd like to think that issues that exist in this world would be more easily resolved if everyone thought the way that we did - “If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator. Hehehe.” - GWB - I mean, really, that's true, but totally a boring, old, cop-out answer. Instead of learning to compromise with people, I'll just let them cower in fear of my power! Ha. Ridiculous.
Donnie represents an anti-hero - irascible, misanthropic and altogether misunderstood. Furthermore, the saliency of his insights into human society make others shy away from him. No one wants to be around someone that reminds them of their own worst fears. Death, instability, anger, fear, loneliness. Why would we want to be around that when we can compartmentalize and categorize our experiences to make them more livable as a whole? Well, I'll tell you why, and Donnie did too, to actually experience life, which isn't always about happiness and security ("Sometimes you’re supposed to be sad. It’s OK, it’s the flip side. And it’s actually good." - Louis CK). We make mistakes, we fuck up royally, but we can still get back out there to retry, to experience again.
I face this sort of dilemma on a daily basis though, as it's not always a life-and-death, save-your-girlfriend-from-a-horrible-end sort of day. From Facebook arguments to workplace woes, there is a stuckness to the way that people approach life; a closing off of their experiences. I was recently told, during an all -important Facebook debate, that the argument I was trying to make, by analogous thinking on my part, was irrelevant because it was bringing in examples that were tangental or analogous, but not directly on topic. So? Is there a standard format for argumentation that always must be followed? If so, our politicians are fucked because they're doing it wrong all.the.time. It seemed to me to be more of a situation in which one party was trying to control for an outcome. This is a common skin for some - controlling everything that happens, from who they talk to, to how they talk to them, to where they're seen and who they're seen with, blah blah, so...Plastics. But don't forget....control is an illusion. The mirage is strong and some people will go quite far to deny they're vying for control. They'll readily admit to having no free will or their fate is in God's hands or science is the answer, et al. But challenge whatever their roulette wheel has randomly (*cough*bullshit*cough*) stopped on and BAM: now you're their enemy because you chose to question. And maybe my disdain at control is just another form of control - oh gods, the horror! So why continue to discuss and press? To challenge people. To determine whether there is more to learn and to potentially change (One day, observing a child drinking out of his hands, he cast away the cup from his wallet with the words, "A child has beaten me in plainness of living."- Diogenes the Cynic [WWDD - What Would Diogenes Do?]) So this is where I would say that identifying that control (which is really just another way of saying "desiring" a certain outcome, so I am ripping off the Buddha big time here) is a problem and attempting to go more with the flow is not the same type of stuckness.
Today, I was talking to some students about the Weather Underground, and how some of the people involved went on to become active members of society after their years of destruction. We debated whether that was "unusual" and some of the students were adamant about the possibility of second chances. One student insisted that we are too harsh on each other, that people can change not only physically, but mentally and spiritually. It was an interesting discussion that helped some of them consider the role of judgment in American society's nature. This is especially prevalent when it comes to failures, mistakes and missteps (mighty and otherwise). Maybe there isn't enough leeway given for people who commit wrongs in their pasts. That would also hold true for Donnie, who, being maligned as a weirdo, was outcasted even though he was on the threshold of making amazing connections about our own existence to anyone who was listening. Unfortunately, since most of his interactions were erased by time travel to save others, it turns out that no one but himself would be privy to his newfound understanding of the world. But maybe that's why he's laughing, because he's letting go of control finally and it's so easy. He let go of the fact that he can't actually teach anyone anything and that he's now dying, alone. He's reached enlightenment in a way that was so easy in the end. A complete acceptance of death.
And of course, a relatable song! New Machine, part 1, Pink Floyd:
I have always been here
I have always looked out from behind the eyes
It feels like more than a lifetime
Feels like more than a lifetime
Sometimes I get tired of the waiting
Sometimes I get tired of being in here
Is this the way it has always been?
Could it ever have been different?
Do you ever get tired of the waiting?
Do you ever get tired of being in there?
Don't worry, nobody lives forever,
Nobody lives forever
26 May 2014
“Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody.”
It's beautiful outside, but as I sit here, moping, I realize still rotten on the inside. Not rotten as in evil, but just a miserable fuck at the core. I don't want to be, it's just my nature to be "the misery chick" or whatever that means. Some of these feelings have already been expounded in previous posts. My internal sufferings are not always apparent to the outside world, nor do I usually allow it to affect how I treat others. My misery is my own to bear, not for others to deal with.
When I first read The Catcher in the Rye in high school, I fell in love with it. The book definitely has its detractors. "Holden is so annoying! Stop complaining!" Sure, it's true...Holden is a complainer, but you're also privy to his inner monologue. Pay attention to all the shit you think about all day - your first impressions, your endless judgments of everyone. You're just as annoying and you're probably an adult. At least Holden was a teenager, so suck on that.. Holden's experiences in the world around him are pretty standard except that he really notices how fucked up everyone and everything around him is. Everyone is wrapped up in keeping the system going, trying to maintain a level of normalcy for their own narrative. And here is Holden to tell us it's all bullshit. I definitely agreed with that in high school and it only got more real as I got older.
Also like me, Holden learned a lot about the world from being an introvert. He and I both seem to prefer to be on the outside, an observer of the world. Holden has respect for a few people in his life - his sister, his brothers, and two of his teachers. One of his former teachers, Mr. Antolini, drops THIS on the reader (before we find out he might be a creepjob): “Among other things, you'll find that you're not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You're by no means alone on that score, you'll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them—if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry.” Gorgeous. And hopeful. And seemingly influential because Holden does try to "do the right thing" throughout the book. He's a misanthrope, sure, but he's also principled enough to treat people with respect, even the people he dislikes. He doesn't even seem to dislike most of them THAT much. Holden just gets depressed that people can't see beyond their own nose.
So that is where I am at right now. A Holden for the 21st century.
When I first read The Catcher in the Rye in high school, I fell in love with it. The book definitely has its detractors. "Holden is so annoying! Stop complaining!" Sure, it's true...Holden is a complainer, but you're also privy to his inner monologue. Pay attention to all the shit you think about all day - your first impressions, your endless judgments of everyone. You're just as annoying and you're probably an adult. At least Holden was a teenager, so suck on that.. Holden's experiences in the world around him are pretty standard except that he really notices how fucked up everyone and everything around him is. Everyone is wrapped up in keeping the system going, trying to maintain a level of normalcy for their own narrative. And here is Holden to tell us it's all bullshit. I definitely agreed with that in high school and it only got more real as I got older.
Also like me, Holden learned a lot about the world from being an introvert. He and I both seem to prefer to be on the outside, an observer of the world. Holden has respect for a few people in his life - his sister, his brothers, and two of his teachers. One of his former teachers, Mr. Antolini, drops THIS on the reader (before we find out he might be a creepjob): “Among other things, you'll find that you're not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You're by no means alone on that score, you'll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them—if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry.” Gorgeous. And hopeful. And seemingly influential because Holden does try to "do the right thing" throughout the book. He's a misanthrope, sure, but he's also principled enough to treat people with respect, even the people he dislikes. He doesn't even seem to dislike most of them THAT much. Holden just gets depressed that people can't see beyond their own nose.
So that is where I am at right now. A Holden for the 21st century.
19 May 2014
Don't Take Any Guff From These Swine.
Heroes. I'm anti-heroes. Even Super-Heroes don't float my boat. Why should we be impressed with Superman? He's an alien. Of course he's super here, we're not the same species. And don't get me started on Batman. He's probably the coolest superhero, but he's just some rich dude. Bill Gates could become Batman. And that right there makes it inherently uncool. Historically, the "great man" theory is bunk. No one is perfect, nor will they ever be and to teach them that way does both their legacy and the current audience a disservice.
All that being said, I do kind of have a hero. Or at least someone I admire. Admire is a weird word though because he's probably not too admirable. Hunter S. Thompson is my main man. How about that? Can I say that without seeming like a hypocrite about heroes?? Hopefully.
So what's so...great about him? I have never encountered someone so unabashedly themselves (go back to the authenticity post on that one). Sure, I never met him, but I have read a lot of his writings, from his letters to his essays to his novels. He was wicked smart and had a critical eye that he turned toward everyone and everything, including himself. Thompson was a writer and had that artistic predilection that so many American writers seem to have: toward instability. His antics were well known, but his commentary on how he couldn't escape this aura that had been created around him refers back to what I wrote about previously in regards to our obsession with labeling everyone. People wanted to see him stumble around drunk/high/wacked out 24/7. They wanted the Thompson show. And that was him sometimes, which he readily admits, but it wasn't to be regarded as America's first reality show, it was for his own entertainment/enlightenment/escape (whatever you want to call it). He did not advocate the use of anything by anyone but himself.
Politically, he leaned libertarian, with a strong anti-authority streak and a penchant for guns (and whiskey). He ran for political office in Aspen, Colorado under the Freak Power ticket. His love for this area of the country was evident - it was up and coming, yet still beautifully full of open, undeveloped space. Although the campaign was tight, his hopes were dashed by his opponent's scare tactics (that HST was the pied piper of some sort of speed freak circus that would rape your daughters). His political unpacking of American politicians (esp Nixon) is brutal; he leaves nothing to question about what he dislikes - surprisingly, it isn't politicians' policies, it's usually their dishonesty toward their constituents. You get a sense of what he was so angry about from his obit of Nixon: Nixon will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man shitting in his own nest. But he also shit in our nests, and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory like a brand. By disgracing and degrading the Presidency of the United States, by fleeing the White House like a diseased cur, Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream.
The "American Dream," is actually in the subtitle of the iconic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream. From a young age, HST wanted to be a writer, and he was obsessed with, among other American greats, F. Scott Fitzgerald. I read that he typed and retyped The Great Gatsby over and over so that he could understand the process of writing. Having read TGG multiple times, I can imagine how this practice might start to influence your own view of the world too. TGG portrays the tragedy, the falsehood of the American dream that so many of our forebears had believed in. Gatsby's dream doesn't come true, even though he worked so hard, had everything planned out just so. If you're doubtful on this, then I'd argue that the younger generation does not seem to hold out much hope for an American dream to come true for themselves, which is why the book still resonates with so many teens today. And it also may be why.so many older Americans see the younger generation as so terrible (they're lazy! they have no hope! no drive!). Sadly, I think the youth may be right - they're not cynical, they're realistic.
HST was an imperfect man in imperfect times. He stood up for what he believed in and tried to make himself heard. The line he walked between sanity and insanity was so worn that many tuned him out, or pre-judged him as being over the line. The only difference between the Sane and the Insane, is IN and yet within this world, the Sane have the power to have the Insane locked up. A similar tune has been sung by philosopher Robert Pirsig, who was driven insane by his own inquiry into the meaning of quality and "good"ness in this world. Pirsig underwent electroshock therapy that radically altered his personality, making him near unrecognizable to his own son. In both HST and Pirsig's cases, their experimentation with expansion of the mind, through drugs, philosophical inquiry and medical treatments gave them a much wider perspective on the world than most people around them. Their openness to life is admirable. Even if you're not inclined to achieve a more gestalt perspective in the same way, you could still learn something from them.
All that being said, I do kind of have a hero. Or at least someone I admire. Admire is a weird word though because he's probably not too admirable. Hunter S. Thompson is my main man. How about that? Can I say that without seeming like a hypocrite about heroes?? Hopefully.
So what's so...great about him? I have never encountered someone so unabashedly themselves (go back to the authenticity post on that one). Sure, I never met him, but I have read a lot of his writings, from his letters to his essays to his novels. He was wicked smart and had a critical eye that he turned toward everyone and everything, including himself. Thompson was a writer and had that artistic predilection that so many American writers seem to have: toward instability. His antics were well known, but his commentary on how he couldn't escape this aura that had been created around him refers back to what I wrote about previously in regards to our obsession with labeling everyone. People wanted to see him stumble around drunk/high/wacked out 24/7. They wanted the Thompson show. And that was him sometimes, which he readily admits, but it wasn't to be regarded as America's first reality show, it was for his own entertainment/enlightenment/escape (whatever you want to call it). He did not advocate the use of anything by anyone but himself.
Politically, he leaned libertarian, with a strong anti-authority streak and a penchant for guns (and whiskey). He ran for political office in Aspen, Colorado under the Freak Power ticket. His love for this area of the country was evident - it was up and coming, yet still beautifully full of open, undeveloped space. Although the campaign was tight, his hopes were dashed by his opponent's scare tactics (that HST was the pied piper of some sort of speed freak circus that would rape your daughters). His political unpacking of American politicians (esp Nixon) is brutal; he leaves nothing to question about what he dislikes - surprisingly, it isn't politicians' policies, it's usually their dishonesty toward their constituents. You get a sense of what he was so angry about from his obit of Nixon: Nixon will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man shitting in his own nest. But he also shit in our nests, and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory like a brand. By disgracing and degrading the Presidency of the United States, by fleeing the White House like a diseased cur, Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream.
The "American Dream," is actually in the subtitle of the iconic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream. From a young age, HST wanted to be a writer, and he was obsessed with, among other American greats, F. Scott Fitzgerald. I read that he typed and retyped The Great Gatsby over and over so that he could understand the process of writing. Having read TGG multiple times, I can imagine how this practice might start to influence your own view of the world too. TGG portrays the tragedy, the falsehood of the American dream that so many of our forebears had believed in. Gatsby's dream doesn't come true, even though he worked so hard, had everything planned out just so. If you're doubtful on this, then I'd argue that the younger generation does not seem to hold out much hope for an American dream to come true for themselves, which is why the book still resonates with so many teens today. And it also may be why.so many older Americans see the younger generation as so terrible (they're lazy! they have no hope! no drive!). Sadly, I think the youth may be right - they're not cynical, they're realistic.
HST was an imperfect man in imperfect times. He stood up for what he believed in and tried to make himself heard. The line he walked between sanity and insanity was so worn that many tuned him out, or pre-judged him as being over the line. The only difference between the Sane and the Insane, is IN and yet within this world, the Sane have the power to have the Insane locked up. A similar tune has been sung by philosopher Robert Pirsig, who was driven insane by his own inquiry into the meaning of quality and "good"ness in this world. Pirsig underwent electroshock therapy that radically altered his personality, making him near unrecognizable to his own son. In both HST and Pirsig's cases, their experimentation with expansion of the mind, through drugs, philosophical inquiry and medical treatments gave them a much wider perspective on the world than most people around them. Their openness to life is admirable. Even if you're not inclined to achieve a more gestalt perspective in the same way, you could still learn something from them.
18 May 2014
On Being Beautiful or Not
I am not conventionally attractive. I am OK with it, but I used to not be. At some point (hopefully) you learn there's room for success and love in your life whether you're physically "beautiful" or not. Wow, what a concept! Yet, it can be difficult to break with the prevailing culture's ideas on beauty, whether you agree with them or not.
1. they're everywhere (we do really need models selling hamburgers to us, really we do)
2. your fellow humans internalize them and formulate expectations for real life through them (ahem, all that porn is really letting you down, amirite?).
Seriously though, people who are revered for their beauty, just like the famous (and those often go hand in hand), get pigeonholed into being some thing for the rest of their lives. The world around them reduces them to a one-dimensional being. "Oh you're so beautiful! You look so gorgeous in this picture!" And then what? Are they nothing else? What happens when that praise runs out because they're older? Or they change their hairstyle? Or they gain weight? Oh gasp.
We see it with movie stars all the time - especially women. Actresses are ticking time bombs toward self-mutilation. It is only a matter of time before their face becomes a parody of itself. Holding each former feature in line with scalpel slices and stitches.The superficiality of American culture takes hold, so that women who are aging out of their young vamp stage are grasping to maintain a foot in the game. Or are drugging themselves into oblivion to forget that they're old hat. Or doing both. And we can malign Lindsay Lohan for being a psycho, but we actually helped create Lindsay and the people who are just like her. She was everyone's spank bank material for years, and then what? Some younger, newer piece came along. As everyone's attention flocked to the novelty, what is the old news supposed to do? How is she supposed to feel? Not that she shouldn't be blamed for ruining her own life, career and face, but her options might have been limited to very narrow and risky roads if she wanted to maintain even a modicum of her old life.
Returning to the average woman's experience, the pressures to conform to particular standards of beauty are evident. Men can also face similar pressures, though these seem to be more localized (dependent on the circles in which he rolls). The limitations on free will in these cases are due to external standards that have been digested and internalized by the choice maker. So should we feel sorry for the beautiful and famous? Not exactly. Should we stop paying homage to someone because they're gorgeous? Probably. Think about being well-liked for only one asset of your being. Seems like it would get boring after a while; an unfulfilling experience.
It's actually similar to what Betty Friedan was pointing out in The Feminine Mystique. To sum up her argument, she's questioning her existence as a college educated young woman sitting in a house folding her children's clothing all day. Yeah, I'd question that too, because it relegates my womb-ness to my indelible, all trumping asset. And that's fine, because some women want to have children. But some women don't (and shouldn't). Just because you have a waffle maker doesn't mean you have to make waffles every day, you know what I'm saying?
So just like women don't want to be just housewives and mothers, the beautiful or not beautiful don't want to be known as just "the hot one" or "the ugly one." Labels are convenient and helpful, but there is also a risk of really limiting someone's existence to some ready-made form. A friend of mine had a husband who labeled all young women today as :"sluts." His inability to understand that someone having agency over their own body (thanks feminism) allowed them to be OK with their own sexuality so much so that they could reject his ass. That hurt him because his concept of women was as a sexual object, and when that was visualized but not physicalized through his experience, well, it was just too confusing for his little brain to handle. Women gaining agency over their own existence is a dangerous concept in many parts of the world, including our own. Grown men would rather shoot a child in the head than have her learn to read.
The funny end to this story is that patriarchy reins in men as much as it reins in women. Men who push for control over their wives and daughters, over their employee's ability to procure birth control are just as scarred by this system as the women they're lording over. Sure, there is a big gap between being in power and being subordinate. But in both cases, the depotentialization is the same. If you're supposed to be a big, bad man but you're a 98 pound weakling or even worse, an emotional man, there has to be some stress eating you up inside. But breathe deeply because no one is perfect and everyone should be let off the hook at least a little bit for their uniqueness. Our idiosyncrasies represent what makes us attractive as friends and lovers. They are also what helps us realize that the labels we've been using are limited and silly.
And from Malala:
"The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them. This is why they killed 14 innocent students in the recent attack in Quetta. And that is why they kill female teachers. That is why they are blasting schools every day because they were and they are afraid of change and equality that we will bring to our society.”
1. they're everywhere (we do really need models selling hamburgers to us, really we do)
2. your fellow humans internalize them and formulate expectations for real life through them (ahem, all that porn is really letting you down, amirite?).
Seriously though, people who are revered for their beauty, just like the famous (and those often go hand in hand), get pigeonholed into being some thing for the rest of their lives. The world around them reduces them to a one-dimensional being. "Oh you're so beautiful! You look so gorgeous in this picture!" And then what? Are they nothing else? What happens when that praise runs out because they're older? Or they change their hairstyle? Or they gain weight? Oh gasp.
We see it with movie stars all the time - especially women. Actresses are ticking time bombs toward self-mutilation. It is only a matter of time before their face becomes a parody of itself. Holding each former feature in line with scalpel slices and stitches.The superficiality of American culture takes hold, so that women who are aging out of their young vamp stage are grasping to maintain a foot in the game. Or are drugging themselves into oblivion to forget that they're old hat. Or doing both. And we can malign Lindsay Lohan for being a psycho, but we actually helped create Lindsay and the people who are just like her. She was everyone's spank bank material for years, and then what? Some younger, newer piece came along. As everyone's attention flocked to the novelty, what is the old news supposed to do? How is she supposed to feel? Not that she shouldn't be blamed for ruining her own life, career and face, but her options might have been limited to very narrow and risky roads if she wanted to maintain even a modicum of her old life.
Returning to the average woman's experience, the pressures to conform to particular standards of beauty are evident. Men can also face similar pressures, though these seem to be more localized (dependent on the circles in which he rolls). The limitations on free will in these cases are due to external standards that have been digested and internalized by the choice maker. So should we feel sorry for the beautiful and famous? Not exactly. Should we stop paying homage to someone because they're gorgeous? Probably. Think about being well-liked for only one asset of your being. Seems like it would get boring after a while; an unfulfilling experience.
It's actually similar to what Betty Friedan was pointing out in The Feminine Mystique. To sum up her argument, she's questioning her existence as a college educated young woman sitting in a house folding her children's clothing all day. Yeah, I'd question that too, because it relegates my womb-ness to my indelible, all trumping asset. And that's fine, because some women want to have children. But some women don't (and shouldn't). Just because you have a waffle maker doesn't mean you have to make waffles every day, you know what I'm saying?
So just like women don't want to be just housewives and mothers, the beautiful or not beautiful don't want to be known as just "the hot one" or "the ugly one." Labels are convenient and helpful, but there is also a risk of really limiting someone's existence to some ready-made form. A friend of mine had a husband who labeled all young women today as :"sluts." His inability to understand that someone having agency over their own body (thanks feminism) allowed them to be OK with their own sexuality so much so that they could reject his ass. That hurt him because his concept of women was as a sexual object, and when that was visualized but not physicalized through his experience, well, it was just too confusing for his little brain to handle. Women gaining agency over their own existence is a dangerous concept in many parts of the world, including our own. Grown men would rather shoot a child in the head than have her learn to read.
The funny end to this story is that patriarchy reins in men as much as it reins in women. Men who push for control over their wives and daughters, over their employee's ability to procure birth control are just as scarred by this system as the women they're lording over. Sure, there is a big gap between being in power and being subordinate. But in both cases, the depotentialization is the same. If you're supposed to be a big, bad man but you're a 98 pound weakling or even worse, an emotional man, there has to be some stress eating you up inside. But breathe deeply because no one is perfect and everyone should be let off the hook at least a little bit for their uniqueness. Our idiosyncrasies represent what makes us attractive as friends and lovers. They are also what helps us realize that the labels we've been using are limited and silly.
And from Malala:
"The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them. This is why they killed 14 innocent students in the recent attack in Quetta. And that is why they kill female teachers. That is why they are blasting schools every day because they were and they are afraid of change and equality that we will bring to our society.”
12 May 2014
Authenticity?
People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates. - Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist
What does it mean to be your "authentic" self? If we search for authenticity in our own lives, actions, etc, are we looking for a Truth that isn't there? The problems with seeking a "truth" is that it is a mirage - something we see up ahead, rush to find, only to be let down in the end. But with our selves, is there some sort of core self, and therefore, true self? No, probably not because people can go through major life and personality changes. The "self" itself (lol) is pretty damn ambiguous.Szasz's quote fits in with an existentialist's view on life, which is probably why I find myself agreeing with it. The self, one's essence, is created by the one experiencing said existence. During my "day job," my students and I were considering the role of society in the construction of gender roles. The general consensus among 15 year olds (as well as anthropologists) is that society guides our view of what is acceptable and not when it comes to gender. Adults treat baby girls and boys differently, which was inculcated in them by their own parents, and them by their own parents, to the point that it becomes entrenched in our minds as being true. Yet, with awareness that not all girls have to play with dolls or not all boys who play with dolls will be "less manly" or "GAY," we can relax some of our solid notions on what we deem allowable for children, thus allowing them to pursue their own preferences.
Although this family may take it too far, it will be interesting to see what an environment free of conditioning from the outside will lead to. The students also concluded that gender stereotypes and gender roles are different, with stereotypes leading to a "boxing in" of potentials, and roles mirroring more natural biological talents of both men and women. Teenagers are pretty lucid when they want to be, and their observations were refreshing in a world full of shithead adults (Really, Phyllis? You're the shittiest Catholic on the planet - Jesus would not be pleased) who walk around spouting nonsense for attention and fame. It convinced me more that adults with narrow minds tend to be the problem because of their inability to break out of any sort of comfortable way of thinking. Meanwhile, someone whose identity is not yet solid, and is being challenged on a daily basis is actually a good indicator that being true to one's feelings is liberating.
This liberation is not only of expression, but of mind and body as well. As a culture, we impose a lot of rules on when teenagers should or shouldn't be doing certain acts -don't have sex until you're married, don't drink until you're 21, don't stay out late and blow off your homework - as though the adults have never made bad decisions in their lives. Instead of being a reformed hypocrite (or one of those former smokers who walks around coughing whenever someone even mentions cigarettes), try being honest. Younger people respect anecdotal evidence and the "lessons you learned" from being a piece of shit when you were younger more than hearing about how awesome you are now and how they should listen to you because you're older. And this goes back to my original query on the "authentic" self. Adults seem to have forgotten how to be honest with not only younger generations, but with themselves.
Sometimes, when you're snowed in, it's OK to have a dance party by yourself, or to pick your nose, or to do whatever act you had previously set up to be "taboo" in your mind. It might actually help release some pent-up aggression and frustrations that were building. Or maybe you'll reawaken some sort of talent that you'd been hiding because it was "silly" or "you weren't really that good at it anyway." Judgment is a time waster; it takes up energy that could be used to do something more enjoyable AND productive - who the fuck cares that all of your self-made pottery wheel vases lean to the left? At least you made them yourself. Find yourself in yourself. Not in a self-help book or in some fad diet. They may not work for the type of person you are, and if that is the case, they'll end up making you feel worse about yourself in the end. So we create a self, but there's a self that is undeniably us due to our experiences in the world. It is difficult to wrap one's head around this idea because finding and creating oneself seems to be only different semantically. But the nuance here is that because we're creating our "self" through our choices and by nature of our genetics; if we rely on "finding" ourselves outside our "self" then, no, it's not us. You can definitely learn and mimic the actions of others, but even these adopted traits will likely change in some way to represent some unique "you-ness."
If we think of both gender and ego as "performative," as though we are acting out a role, then we can think of the difference between a skilled actor and a bad actor. The bad actor is trying to play a character, he is NOT the character. A skilled actor is the character. We are men and women, and ultimately human, because we play one on TV. Some of us are reality TV stars that everyone hates, and others are winning Emmys by the boatload.
Authenticity means only what you are at any certain moment, and if you're faking an accent, dressing a certain way, drinking a certain type of wine, et al, to live up to some sort of self-made image of who you really should be (that you hope other people share as well), well, let me tell you a secret : we know you're faking it and it's annoying the shit out of us.
06 May 2014
Ride the Spiral To The End
So, I am an atheist, which has been mentioned before on this blog. The sort of atheist I am is...complicated. I have been in arguments over my beliefs because people insist to me that, "You are NOT an atheist." It is true that I dislike Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins when it comes to their explanations of spirituality and religiosity. However, I don't believe in God, gods, god, G-d, or anything related to theistic beliefs.
This entire post has been difficult for me to write, not because I fear sharing anything about mybeliefs feelings, but because it is hard for me to express it properly. Recently, a friend had asserted that I am a transcendentalist. While I enjoy Thoreau and Emerson, there is something that makes me not a transcendentalist, though I am not entirely sure what that is. The existentialist aspects of transcendentalism I empathize with, but I would guess that it is the focus on the individual's will and the overall idealism of the movement ultimately leads me to stray from their beliefs. If there were cynical transcendentalists, then maybe that would be more amenable to what I feel. Maybe part of what is tripping me up here is the difference between the terms transcendental and the transcendentalists. I am conflating the two and it's just pissing me off because I can't really understand the difference. Fuck language (see below for more on that).
There is nothing "greater" than my own experience. Greater in this sense would mean on any sort of elevated plane of existence -as in there is nothing greater than the immanent world (re: this is not the same as what Descartes is asserting). The Hindu monism of "everything is Brahmin" makes sense to me, as we are all part of the same universe, acting out a bit of energy and matter in our own lifetimes, to then pass ultimately into non-being when we die, with our energy and matter continuing to exist, albeit in different forms.
To better explain this, the metaphysical rockers Cynic have a great line that comes to mind, "Cosmic cavalcade we are but one," from their song "Integral Birth." The idea that we're both wave and particle, both dead and alive (Schroedinger's cat, human style), is, to me, not transcendentalist, but natural law. Our understanding of time as a dimension is limited. Our knowledge of our own finitude is scary. Combine the two and we have millennia of myriad interesting religious beliefs.
Honestly, most of what I find trips us up in our understanding of each other's experiences, feelings, beliefs etc, are words. Language plays a large role in our perception of the world around us. Linguistic structure and vocabulary affect how we analyze and ultimately understand what we take in via the sensory. Also, since language is a construct of human intellect, a side effect of the human condition, everything is, in a sense, metaphorical. Even the simplest words color our understanding. It's only an approximation of any sort of feelings we have. Imagine if you were asked to draw the events of your day. It is likely that something would be lost by having to share your experiences through such a method. Our adeptness at speaking and writing helps to narrow that gap between what we experience and how we relate it to others, or even reflect on it ourselves, but it, too is still not perfect.
If we take the Catholic tenet of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" we can see it as 3 separate words and therefore separate concepts, or we can see it as asserting that there is one existence in various forms. Jesus' temptations, his conversations with God and Satan, are all representative of what it means to be a conscious being. He is conflicted about whether he should continue to do what he knows is right, not because God is telling him he must, but because it really fucking sucks to be the target of other people's ire. He also has to suffer to show us that we can do what we know is right over what we know is comfortable. Taken in this sense, the story is beautiful to me, but it is convoluted to fit particular agendas that use it to subjugate others.So, sigh, because we could learn a lot from actually using religious texts to understand the world around us, instead of making a modern world fit into ancient stories.
Leave it to another song to really understand my feelings. Tool's song "Lateralus" really hits home for me in this verse:
This entire post has been difficult for me to write, not because I fear sharing anything about my
There is nothing "greater" than my own experience. Greater in this sense would mean on any sort of elevated plane of existence -as in there is nothing greater than the immanent world (re: this is not the same as what Descartes is asserting). The Hindu monism of "everything is Brahmin" makes sense to me, as we are all part of the same universe, acting out a bit of energy and matter in our own lifetimes, to then pass ultimately into non-being when we die, with our energy and matter continuing to exist, albeit in different forms.
To better explain this, the metaphysical rockers Cynic have a great line that comes to mind, "Cosmic cavalcade we are but one," from their song "Integral Birth." The idea that we're both wave and particle, both dead and alive (Schroedinger's cat, human style), is, to me, not transcendentalist, but natural law. Our understanding of time as a dimension is limited. Our knowledge of our own finitude is scary. Combine the two and we have millennia of myriad interesting religious beliefs.
Honestly, most of what I find trips us up in our understanding of each other's experiences, feelings, beliefs etc, are words. Language plays a large role in our perception of the world around us. Linguistic structure and vocabulary affect how we analyze and ultimately understand what we take in via the sensory. Also, since language is a construct of human intellect, a side effect of the human condition, everything is, in a sense, metaphorical. Even the simplest words color our understanding. It's only an approximation of any sort of feelings we have. Imagine if you were asked to draw the events of your day. It is likely that something would be lost by having to share your experiences through such a method. Our adeptness at speaking and writing helps to narrow that gap between what we experience and how we relate it to others, or even reflect on it ourselves, but it, too is still not perfect.
If we take the Catholic tenet of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" we can see it as 3 separate words and therefore separate concepts, or we can see it as asserting that there is one existence in various forms. Jesus' temptations, his conversations with God and Satan, are all representative of what it means to be a conscious being. He is conflicted about whether he should continue to do what he knows is right, not because God is telling him he must, but because it really fucking sucks to be the target of other people's ire. He also has to suffer to show us that we can do what we know is right over what we know is comfortable. Taken in this sense, the story is beautiful to me, but it is convoluted to fit particular agendas that use it to subjugate others.So, sigh, because we could learn a lot from actually using religious texts to understand the world around us, instead of making a modern world fit into ancient stories.
Leave it to another song to really understand my feelings. Tool's song "Lateralus" really hits home for me in this verse:
04 May 2014
Society IS the Corrupting Force
Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to-keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much. - Rousseau
I am in a total Rousseauian mood this week. Tired of work and political bullshit, I suppose, my appreciation of his use of "Enlightenment" logic to tear down human-imposed societal structures with ease is really hitting the spot. There are points in which I disagree with him, especially in his romanticization of the savage and his view on women, which also amounts to a romanticization of the fairer sex. If men are supposed to be free of imposing structures, so too should women, my dear J-J.
Rousseau, when taken broadly, points out that we're slaves to the societal structures we have created. They're stifling our potentials and pushing us to grow in particular directions - as though we're human topiary being meticulously groomed by an overzealous gardener. Our laws and societal norms impose structures that maintain not only the "peace" but also its own power. Society, conceptually, is hegemonic. Any burgeoning sociopolitical structure begins to exist for itself. We propagate it for its own purposes, not necessarily our own. How could a non-entity have "purpose" or a will to continue to survive? Because we've imbued it with one and are now beholden to keeping it going. It's a paradox - humans bring into "being" intangible structures with tangible effects. We, as a species, have collectively contributed to the creation of societies and all of the trappings that go along with that - laws, bureaucracies, gender roles, behavioral norms, etc.
Organized religion carries the same baggage - an imposed structure that eventually drives adherents away unless it can change over time. We see this happening now with the Catholic Church. For an organization to be as old and established as it is, is, in and of itself, impressive. However, the refusal for centuries to modify practices or beliefs has left the church in a crisis mode that it hasn't seen since the Reformation. The current pope has been instrumental in the changes that have recently breathed new life into the aging structure. Will it be too late to save the institution? Will the Church continue to change over the course of the next few generations? Times have changed and when an institution acts ignorantly of the culture surrounding it will continue to nail down its own coffin lid.
The United States is confusing to me in that there are so many "freedoms to" and "freedoms from" within both our legal base and populace, that an outsider would find much hope in the longevity of this society. However, the overriding ideology of democratic tradition has actually supplanted any sort of real democratic advancement with another rigid system of control. To embrace democracy fully would require a level of anarchism that many are uncomfortable with. Anarchy is not a lawless, chaotic society, although some groups have co-opted this definition to either: deride anarchists OR to embrace pursuing their own desires with no remorse for anyone that might stand in the way. What lies within anarchy is a freedom from ideologies and structures. There would be a constant reflection on what is working and what is not. A "democratic" anarchistic society would only thrive with hands-on participation from citizens.
Democracy as hegemony - as the US imposes democratic values and structures in places where it has not evolved naturally or where it may look different in practice - is not truly living up to its own values. Democracy as rule by the people insofar as how they choose to live, regardless of Western economic interests, would be embodying those values.Of course, the growth of education as in promotion of critical thinking and reflection would go a long way in ensuring that whomever is participating in said democracies would be cognizant of others' needs and would not subjugate particular groups by majority rule (ex: voting to ban gay marriage by "popular vote").
Throughout 1968, students, teachers and workers revolted in the US, France, Mexico and other "developed" countries. Their goals weren't to just get so-and-so out of office; their goals were bigger than that - to challenge and change the prevailing social, political and economic cultures. Although some of the demands were met, with particular attention toward opening society toward further acceptance of the many colors that make up the mosaic of human potential, the larger movement then faded out. The prevailing cultures stayed, with many of the protesters looking back on their actions in 1968 as foolish games that children play. Their remorse at even being involved saddens me because it reflects the close-mindedness many adults show toward the young. Sure, children and young adults haven't experienced as much as those older than they, but the young are also able to look at situations from different angles and can make connections that an older person would never be able to simply because the young have not been jaded by a lifetime of experience. The lesson here is that our own life "stories" can become as rigid and hegemonic, guiding our thoughts and actions, shielding us from possibility and change.
I am in a total Rousseauian mood this week. Tired of work and political bullshit, I suppose, my appreciation of his use of "Enlightenment" logic to tear down human-imposed societal structures with ease is really hitting the spot. There are points in which I disagree with him, especially in his romanticization of the savage and his view on women, which also amounts to a romanticization of the fairer sex. If men are supposed to be free of imposing structures, so too should women, my dear J-J.
Rousseau, when taken broadly, points out that we're slaves to the societal structures we have created. They're stifling our potentials and pushing us to grow in particular directions - as though we're human topiary being meticulously groomed by an overzealous gardener. Our laws and societal norms impose structures that maintain not only the "peace" but also its own power. Society, conceptually, is hegemonic. Any burgeoning sociopolitical structure begins to exist for itself. We propagate it for its own purposes, not necessarily our own. How could a non-entity have "purpose" or a will to continue to survive? Because we've imbued it with one and are now beholden to keeping it going. It's a paradox - humans bring into "being" intangible structures with tangible effects. We, as a species, have collectively contributed to the creation of societies and all of the trappings that go along with that - laws, bureaucracies, gender roles, behavioral norms, etc.
Organized religion carries the same baggage - an imposed structure that eventually drives adherents away unless it can change over time. We see this happening now with the Catholic Church. For an organization to be as old and established as it is, is, in and of itself, impressive. However, the refusal for centuries to modify practices or beliefs has left the church in a crisis mode that it hasn't seen since the Reformation. The current pope has been instrumental in the changes that have recently breathed new life into the aging structure. Will it be too late to save the institution? Will the Church continue to change over the course of the next few generations? Times have changed and when an institution acts ignorantly of the culture surrounding it will continue to nail down its own coffin lid.
The United States is confusing to me in that there are so many "freedoms to" and "freedoms from" within both our legal base and populace, that an outsider would find much hope in the longevity of this society. However, the overriding ideology of democratic tradition has actually supplanted any sort of real democratic advancement with another rigid system of control. To embrace democracy fully would require a level of anarchism that many are uncomfortable with. Anarchy is not a lawless, chaotic society, although some groups have co-opted this definition to either: deride anarchists OR to embrace pursuing their own desires with no remorse for anyone that might stand in the way. What lies within anarchy is a freedom from ideologies and structures. There would be a constant reflection on what is working and what is not. A "democratic" anarchistic society would only thrive with hands-on participation from citizens.
Democracy as hegemony - as the US imposes democratic values and structures in places where it has not evolved naturally or where it may look different in practice - is not truly living up to its own values. Democracy as rule by the people insofar as how they choose to live, regardless of Western economic interests, would be embodying those values.Of course, the growth of education as in promotion of critical thinking and reflection would go a long way in ensuring that whomever is participating in said democracies would be cognizant of others' needs and would not subjugate particular groups by majority rule (ex: voting to ban gay marriage by "popular vote").
Throughout 1968, students, teachers and workers revolted in the US, France, Mexico and other "developed" countries. Their goals weren't to just get so-and-so out of office; their goals were bigger than that - to challenge and change the prevailing social, political and economic cultures. Although some of the demands were met, with particular attention toward opening society toward further acceptance of the many colors that make up the mosaic of human potential, the larger movement then faded out. The prevailing cultures stayed, with many of the protesters looking back on their actions in 1968 as foolish games that children play. Their remorse at even being involved saddens me because it reflects the close-mindedness many adults show toward the young. Sure, children and young adults haven't experienced as much as those older than they, but the young are also able to look at situations from different angles and can make connections that an older person would never be able to simply because the young have not been jaded by a lifetime of experience. The lesson here is that our own life "stories" can become as rigid and hegemonic, guiding our thoughts and actions, shielding us from possibility and change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)