Am I a realist or a cynic? Is there a difference? Have I deluded myself into just thinking I'm "right' about the world when in fact I am just some curmudgeon? Or maybe I'm both right AND a curmudgeon? Hmm...
So here's my definition of the cynic: Those who think, at the core, that it's ALL fucked...that there's only this one go-around in this exact consciousness, that we're not living an eternal other-existence in another reality, that nothing can ever be the same, that Gatsby was so fucking delusional to think he could repeat the past....is that a cynic? Is that a realist? Is that me? The signs are everywhere but we're in denial a lot of the time or at least most of us are most of the time. Even the cynic is - unless they're living like Diogenes on the street somewhere - it's pretty easy to get drawn in to all of the mucky-muck of the daily grind, the veil of maya, as the Buddhists call it. It's alluring for sure.
The religious, the people who truly believe in "god," probably think their faith in "god" is similar to my conviction of nothingness, that I have faith in some sort of cynical conception of godliness. That's not true (and maybe you, as the reader, will say I am splitting hairs here), but I attest to knowing nothing. I would claim that I have an utter "lack" of faith. Lacking faith is not the same as possessing faith. Lack means without, an absence of, a deficiency in, a fault. To lack some thing or some aspect does not mean it would truly exist in any one modal form (Plato was so wrong about that. But he [inadvertently, or not] reinforced a binary way of thinking on literally everyone in the Western world).
At the depth of meditation or the nadir of anxiety or even the ecstasy of physical climax, the realization of how empty everything is hits. Sure, all of those emptinesses are different and affect the feeler in various ways. Yet, all are equally void of any real substance. Think about your last great orgasm - what was there but a feeling, a fleetingness that cannot be reclaimed in that same exact way. It's pure experience. As your thoughts and everyday clutter melts away, you're left with just being and you have to be able to just accept that.
This has been said many times over in many incarnations - Jesus, Buddha, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Pirsig, Watts - and yet, to re-realize their point for yourself is worth the iterations. I know I have written about this before in previous posts, but I think I have realized two things more recently:
1. that being a cynic (without being a nihilist) is freeing. It frees the player of real heavy decision making knowing death is an actual endpoint.
2. To clarify the first point, this is not a post advocating suicide, but in actuality, one that promotes going out and enjoying life. In effect, I'm advocating more hedonism.
So whether or not Camus truly said, "Should I kill myself or have a cup of coffee?" may still be up for debate, but I'm sure as hell having another cup of coffee.
28 May 2015
08 March 2015
What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?
This weekend was an impromptu 4 day one due to 2 snow days in a row at the tail end of the week. While it was nice to be off, on Thursday I noticed that one of my guinea pigs was refusing solid food. This is a bad sign in an animal whose entire purpose in life seems to be to eat and poop. Since I was waaaay snowed in on Thursday, I had to improvise by blending up some veggies and hay pellets and trying to hand-feed her. She was mildly receptive, but not really gobbling it up. On Friday I was able to order special food from Amazon for one day shipping and went and got some baby food to hand-feed with in the interim. The food never arrived on Saturday (and I had to actually call Amazon this morning for a refund). She is on the special food now (I found it at a small, local pet store that I forgot existed until today). I don't know if she will make it through this time - once guinea pigs stop eating solid food, it's kind of a bad sign/sign of the end.
Vets don't seem to know what to do with these little guys either. The last one I had that needed medical care spent 2 scary nights alone at the vet where they shaved his teeth down (which I don't even think was the problem - they just wanted to charge me $2000) and died as soon as I brought him home (heart attack). So I don't really want to put her through the same stressors so either she will gert better or die naturally at home.
But after the many trials and tribulations of trying to feed a tiny mammal out of an even tinier syringe, I am tired. But also thoughtful. I have had 4 rescue guinea pigs and 1 store-bought pig. The store bought one died after a year (so sad). The rescue pigs have been heartier, though I don't know from where they originate. The 2 girls I have now are both around 5 or 6 years old. They are cute and friendly and just kind of hang out all day. There's not too much to interact with as they do not have the intellect of a dog or cat, but they are cuddly. On Friday night, after hand-feeding Twinkie, I sat in front of the heater in my bedroom with her on my lap and just cried. Here I was, on a Friday night, sitting in my robe, on the floor in the bedroom, crying my eyes out over a mammal with the life span of maybe 8 years. But I just couldn't help it. Whenever animals or babies are sick, I become a wreck of a human. I just start weeping for every little life out there. As she sat on my lap, I could hear her heartbeat and I watched as she looked around, but sat contentedly without moving. I thought that maybe I could have done more in the time that I had her - taken her out every single day, given her better treats, just been there to do more. But I can't because I work, and I have to keep on truckin' every day, even if that means not always being able to do what I would really like to do all of the time.
That led me to think about what we prioritize in society. Do we prioritize caring for the pets and the people in our lives? I mean, I think the average person would say they personally do, but I don't think our culture does. In fact, I would argue that our system is set up to do the opposite - move on, buy something new, trudge forward no matter what. The elderly are so quaint, with their reminiscing, but come on grandma, just die already so we can bulldoze your house. I mean, sure it's not as disturbing
as that, but I am sure as you read that line, you smirked a little bit. The past is boring! I teach history - I know what most people think about having to look back, and even worse, learn from it. Gasp.
When I was in a better place yesterday, I read this Atlantic article about stressors and their effect on the unborn fetus. Written by a husband and father, it raised a lot of interesting issues regarding how maternity leave is handled in the US. It seems as though there are two poles - the traditionally conservative view of protecting the fetus (more so than the mother's health) by limiting what the mother can/should do during pregnancy, and the more modern feminist view of a woman having complete equality to men no matter what, including not being labeled as "disabled" during their pregnancy (and thereby not getting any special treatment during those 9 months by their employers). I'm weighing in to say both sides are wrong here. Sure, I might disagree that pregnant women shouldn't be labeled as disabled -it's kind of weird honestly- but maybe a different distinction that disallows their employer from requesting that they continue on as though their condition is completely NOT a hindrance to their expected duties. We have to focus on equity and not absolute equality in cases like these. Otherwise we put undue stress on everyone. If we truly care about women, children, families, traditions, equity in the workplace, gender pay gaps, etc, we need to recognize individuals as unique and that a one-size-fits-all ruling will likely harm many people it was created to help. For example, single mothers or women working part time are less likely to be able to feasibly take much time off before or after their babies are born due to the fact that they might HAVE to work. This may also stress the mother, and subsequently, the baby out, causing a host of health problems for both in the future. Their employment status is not always due to their "inability to work hard" or their education level. There are a lot of good people out there today who are well-educated, qualified and willing to work, but there's nothing out there but a sea of entry level, retail and various part-time jobs.
That led me to think about what we prioritize in society. Do we prioritize caring for the pets and the people in our lives? I mean, I think the average person would say they personally do, but I don't think our culture does. In fact, I would argue that our system is set up to do the opposite - move on, buy something new, trudge forward no matter what. The elderly are so quaint, with their reminiscing, but come on grandma, just die already so we can bulldoze your house. I mean, sure it's not as disturbing
as that, but I am sure as you read that line, you smirked a little bit. The past is boring! I teach history - I know what most people think about having to look back, and even worse, learn from it. Gasp.
When I was in a better place yesterday, I read this Atlantic article about stressors and their effect on the unborn fetus. Written by a husband and father, it raised a lot of interesting issues regarding how maternity leave is handled in the US. It seems as though there are two poles - the traditionally conservative view of protecting the fetus (more so than the mother's health) by limiting what the mother can/should do during pregnancy, and the more modern feminist view of a woman having complete equality to men no matter what, including not being labeled as "disabled" during their pregnancy (and thereby not getting any special treatment during those 9 months by their employers). I'm weighing in to say both sides are wrong here. Sure, I might disagree that pregnant women shouldn't be labeled as disabled -it's kind of weird honestly- but maybe a different distinction that disallows their employer from requesting that they continue on as though their condition is completely NOT a hindrance to their expected duties. We have to focus on equity and not absolute equality in cases like these. Otherwise we put undue stress on everyone. If we truly care about women, children, families, traditions, equity in the workplace, gender pay gaps, etc, we need to recognize individuals as unique and that a one-size-fits-all ruling will likely harm many people it was created to help. For example, single mothers or women working part time are less likely to be able to feasibly take much time off before or after their babies are born due to the fact that they might HAVE to work. This may also stress the mother, and subsequently, the baby out, causing a host of health problems for both in the future. Their employment status is not always due to their "inability to work hard" or their education level. There are a lot of good people out there today who are well-educated, qualified and willing to work, but there's nothing out there but a sea of entry level, retail and various part-time jobs.
So I am asking, what can we do to change this course we're currently on as a society - a course that finds every expenditure a chore. Sometimes a society needs to INVEST (which is a nice way of saying, spend some goddamn money) to get returns. If you want to clean up poor neighborhoods and end achievement gaps between the US and other countries, money and time has to be invested into improving public schools, not just constantly poking at them. This would include actually training and hiring quality teachers, ensuring that the school is run well, that funds are used properly, etc. It does not necessarily mean that a new curriculum or testing strategy should be adopted. Sure, Finland is homogenous and has a small population so their methods work for them, blah blah. I have heard all of the criticisms of Finland's schools and why it wouldn't work here. If that's the case, shouldn't Finland take the easy way out and just test the shit out of their kids? I mean, why spend time and energy and money to pay teachers more, have more class options and activities for a cohort of children that could learn easily from drill and kill since there's less diversity to overcome? Well, because the teachers and education community in Finland VALUE what they do by providing students with an enriched environment full of openness, play and personal inquiry.
And to think, this all started with thoughts about a sick guinea pig. Some days I would just like to turn my brain off.
27 February 2015
Introvert seeking advice....?
Need some advice here:
Being a introvert is not something that seems to be very well understood by people who are not introverted themselves. I understand the extrovert and what makes them tick – does it make me able to be like them? No. But I understand them or at least I think I do. The introvert is much more difficult to navigate and I think probably has more subtypes or degrees of, although since I do not speak from experience, I am sure that there are degrees of extroversion as well. I think I finally have come to realize what my other introverted friends have meant when they've said to me over the years, "yea, I just need time to recharge and be away from people." I resisted that line of thinking for a long time. I thought, "nah, I'm so busy! I can't possibly be like that!" But yeah, I am, and I am coming out of the closet as someone who needs to get the fuck away from people sometimes before I go insane.
I assume that people think that I might be an extrovert since I am a teacher AND I have a high level of patience for annoying shit, but that is not the case. The first few days (or even weeks) of school are very hard for me. Not only do I have the back to school night with parents looming over my head, but the first few meetings with the students are typically painfully quiet. As a teacher, i usually detest quietness in my room. If it’s quiet, it’s awkward, yet even an atmosphere of awkwardness cannot bring me to really successfully engage in small talk. Awkwaaaaaard. Introversion has probably led me to miss out on certain opportunities in my life – from leadership roles, to friendships, to cool hang outs and parties, but generally, I am OK with that. I do not have an overwhelming sense or fear of missing out. My "fomo" factor is pretty low.
Being a introvert is not something that seems to be very well understood by people who are not introverted themselves. I understand the extrovert and what makes them tick – does it make me able to be like them? No. But I understand them or at least I think I do. The introvert is much more difficult to navigate and I think probably has more subtypes or degrees of, although since I do not speak from experience, I am sure that there are degrees of extroversion as well. I think I finally have come to realize what my other introverted friends have meant when they've said to me over the years, "yea, I just need time to recharge and be away from people." I resisted that line of thinking for a long time. I thought, "nah, I'm so busy! I can't possibly be like that!" But yeah, I am, and I am coming out of the closet as someone who needs to get the fuck away from people sometimes before I go insane.
I assume that people think that I might be an extrovert since I am a teacher AND I have a high level of patience for annoying shit, but that is not the case. The first few days (or even weeks) of school are very hard for me. Not only do I have the back to school night with parents looming over my head, but the first few meetings with the students are typically painfully quiet. As a teacher, i usually detest quietness in my room. If it’s quiet, it’s awkward, yet even an atmosphere of awkwardness cannot bring me to really successfully engage in small talk. Awkwaaaaaard. Introversion has probably led me to miss out on certain opportunities in my life – from leadership roles, to friendships, to cool hang outs and parties, but generally, I am OK with that. I do not have an overwhelming sense or fear of missing out. My "fomo" factor is pretty low.
Recently I have been approached to take a leadership role in two institutions. This post is not to toot my own horn about being chosen. It’s actually to admit the following- I’d prefer to be left alone or to have never been asked at all. Same thing goes for praise or awards. It’s great to be awarded and flattering to be recognized for doing good work, but at the same time, I would prefer to just fade into the background. It’s weird that someone who has studied history for so long would really prefer to not be recognized for their merits, since I am talking about people who have been recognized for theirs day after day, but I think it actually makes sense. History: A Cautionary Tale. I have seen the damage that fame and power have done to many. The degree to which people change when exposed to recognition happens over and over again. I know that anyone could be corrupted. Even the most moral and reasonable of people can change. I am afraid that it could happen to me too. But I think the introversion is more of the driving factor here. I don’t want people looking at me, noticing me, and worse, criticizing me for actions I take. Is that cowardly? Maybe. I would see it more as making me so uncomfortable that I would be distracted from doing a good job at whatever it was that I was supposed to be doing. I actually have so much fear about becoming pregnant one day because of the amount of attention that it would bring to my being. People, strangers even, would stop to talk to me, ask me questions, etc. AHH!! Someone hit the panic button!
I can talk with the best of them, but I have to really know a person and be invested in the relationship. Like I mentioned earlier, if I have to make small talk, it is torturous. It’s not because I am mean or I dislike anyone, but more so because I just cannot deal with the awkwardness of having to restrain myself from saying things that I shouldn’t around “mixed company” – in fact, this is what makes me so hesitant when it comes to thinking about being in a leadership role. I might have good ideas, or even the ability to inspire people (*toooooot*vomit*), but I cannot fathom having to rein myself in even in the slightest. Again, is this selfish and uncalled for? Should I just grow the fuck up? I don’t know. But I do know that the discomfort that it would bring to me to have to bite my tongue makes me want to avoid situations in which I had to like the plague. I think the reason I love the British so much when it comes to their style of humor revolves around their ability to turn the rules of decorum on their heads while still being delightfully polite.
I talk a lot about never fearing love and reaching out to embrace all mankind and all that jazz on this blog, but sometimes I really just want to kick someone's ass. I wonder if Gandhi ever said something like that. I dislike being associated with the word curmudgeon, but it's probably not too far off from my being true (on the inside at least). But that is probably the introvert in me - trying to exert some control over the situation by avoiding it. I not so secretly DO hate people sometimes. But I try to get over my hatred by acting kindly. I’d really truly love to be the swift hand of justice sometimes though and just smack someone who deserves it clean across the cheek with no chance of them retaliating. BAM! I’d LOVE to slap the stupid out of people, and I do, in my random rantings and in my mind. Like a slap for that lady who didn’t smile for 40 years to prevent wrinkles. SLAP! Or those people who didn’t vaccinate their children and then infected other people’s children with measles. SLAP! Or that state senator in Montana who wants to ban yoga pants in public. SLAP! Self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, endlessly concerned with the wrong issues and causes....*sigh*
But I have to try to not do that. And maybe just laugh instead.
So yeah, if you have any advice, let me know. I'm not interested in changing my entire nature, but I could use some tips to make life easier.
24 January 2015
Physics, the Universe and God
This is a part II to the previous post, which I felt was incomplete, but that I posted anyway because I couldn't quite figure out how to reconcile what I was really relaying.
I have been reading a lot of science-based non-fiction lately. It started by watching Cosmos which re-ignited a piece of my brain that had laid dormant for a while - scientific inquiry. I always really liked science in high school. Science AND math actually. They provide answers to problems in a tidy way that just makes you feel accomplished. I have been waaaay out of that scene for a while though, so my skills of actually completing any sort of mathematical equations would be very compromised at this point without some serious remediation.
The book I am currently reading on this subject, "You Are Here: A Portable History of the Universe," by Christopher Potter, is more of a history of science, specifically science dedicated to understanding the universe. The author was in a related field, but personally had some issues with understanding his "place in it all" and the point of what he was doing. And I think that philosophical inquiry regarding our understanding of, well, our understanding of everything, is key to actually being able to understand! Haha. Confusing. But Socrates was able to formulate this idea over 2,000 years ago too - All I know that I know nothing. We've come further into our knowing, but we still don't know anything. It's like we have gathered more puzzle pieces but we still don't know what the puzzle will look like once we snap them all together. Hell, we have like half a face and 3/4 of the border and we're still squinting at it like a damn magic eye picture, trying to figure out what the fuck we're looking at (also, for the record, I can't see ANYTHING in those magic eye pics, so I might be useless when it comes to figuring out what the universe IS or ISN'T). And I am not saying we shouldn't be collecting those puzzle pieces. We just can't get bogged down that the puzzle will solve ANY earthly concern for us in the grand scheme of things.
Potter discusses the "standard theory" of the universe and how messy it is. How it can almost be nothing in the end since it's so nebulous and seemingly disjointed. I haven't finished the book yet, but even so far throughout, he has been pointing out how little we really know. Or how un-definitive our attempts have been to make sense of the universe. We have the atom, we break it open. We have the smallest particles we think we can find, we find smaller ones. We have anti-particles, theorized particles, and a slew of unanswered questions cropping up for each question we do happen to answer. The physicists looking for a "unifying theory" are looking for "god" in numbers. And it strikes me as funny because I doubt they'd believe that to be true, but it's why someone like Sam Harris is so laughable to me. I can't take this genius of neuroscience seriously when he talks, and especially when he criticizes religion and spiritual leaders, because he's so full of shit. He's positing a new vision of god - just one that he can back up with numbers.
Math is the "universal" language, but it's not something that exists out in the wilds of nature. It's a recognizable pattern that HUMANS imposed on something that has existed without explanation since before our appearance on this planet. So what if the Fibonnaci sequence makes sense with this series of numbers? We figured that out after the fact of its existence. Nature is the ultimate existence precedes essence.
Once you stop looking for god in math and science, in spiritual realms, in others, even in yourself, that's when everything starts making sense because you realize that nothing does. The unity is the experience of living more than anything else. From person to person, those experiences aren't ever the same, and will never be- so the endless judgments we cast only makes our shared interactions painful. But we can overcome these tendencies somehow. I have a hard time knowing exactly how. I keep trying to express love and understanding, only to find myself getting stuck in the rut of a hate-fest and cycles of frustration and despair. What I keep coming back to is that ultimately, the goal is to live and not simply to avoid death, which is a scary thought because living entails risks and potentially death. But if I cozy up in my home eternally, or even just never extend myself to try and break down walls both physically and mentally between myself and others, well, then what good am I? Any suggestions are welcome.
I have been reading a lot of science-based non-fiction lately. It started by watching Cosmos which re-ignited a piece of my brain that had laid dormant for a while - scientific inquiry. I always really liked science in high school. Science AND math actually. They provide answers to problems in a tidy way that just makes you feel accomplished. I have been waaaay out of that scene for a while though, so my skills of actually completing any sort of mathematical equations would be very compromised at this point without some serious remediation.
The book I am currently reading on this subject, "You Are Here: A Portable History of the Universe," by Christopher Potter, is more of a history of science, specifically science dedicated to understanding the universe. The author was in a related field, but personally had some issues with understanding his "place in it all" and the point of what he was doing. And I think that philosophical inquiry regarding our understanding of, well, our understanding of everything, is key to actually being able to understand! Haha. Confusing. But Socrates was able to formulate this idea over 2,000 years ago too - All I know that I know nothing. We've come further into our knowing, but we still don't know anything. It's like we have gathered more puzzle pieces but we still don't know what the puzzle will look like once we snap them all together. Hell, we have like half a face and 3/4 of the border and we're still squinting at it like a damn magic eye picture, trying to figure out what the fuck we're looking at (also, for the record, I can't see ANYTHING in those magic eye pics, so I might be useless when it comes to figuring out what the universe IS or ISN'T). And I am not saying we shouldn't be collecting those puzzle pieces. We just can't get bogged down that the puzzle will solve ANY earthly concern for us in the grand scheme of things.
Potter discusses the "standard theory" of the universe and how messy it is. How it can almost be nothing in the end since it's so nebulous and seemingly disjointed. I haven't finished the book yet, but even so far throughout, he has been pointing out how little we really know. Or how un-definitive our attempts have been to make sense of the universe. We have the atom, we break it open. We have the smallest particles we think we can find, we find smaller ones. We have anti-particles, theorized particles, and a slew of unanswered questions cropping up for each question we do happen to answer. The physicists looking for a "unifying theory" are looking for "god" in numbers. And it strikes me as funny because I doubt they'd believe that to be true, but it's why someone like Sam Harris is so laughable to me. I can't take this genius of neuroscience seriously when he talks, and especially when he criticizes religion and spiritual leaders, because he's so full of shit. He's positing a new vision of god - just one that he can back up with numbers.
Math is the "universal" language, but it's not something that exists out in the wilds of nature. It's a recognizable pattern that HUMANS imposed on something that has existed without explanation since before our appearance on this planet. So what if the Fibonnaci sequence makes sense with this series of numbers? We figured that out after the fact of its existence. Nature is the ultimate existence precedes essence.
Once you stop looking for god in math and science, in spiritual realms, in others, even in yourself, that's when everything starts making sense because you realize that nothing does. The unity is the experience of living more than anything else. From person to person, those experiences aren't ever the same, and will never be- so the endless judgments we cast only makes our shared interactions painful. But we can overcome these tendencies somehow. I have a hard time knowing exactly how. I keep trying to express love and understanding, only to find myself getting stuck in the rut of a hate-fest and cycles of frustration and despair. What I keep coming back to is that ultimately, the goal is to live and not simply to avoid death, which is a scary thought because living entails risks and potentially death. But if I cozy up in my home eternally, or even just never extend myself to try and break down walls both physically and mentally between myself and others, well, then what good am I? Any suggestions are welcome.
19 January 2015
Personal identifiers and control. ..
The question of why I do not like labels has been something that I have not been able to entirely resolve for a while now. When I say I am an atheist or feminist, but that I don't want to have that label attached to my being, I get weird reactions. People WANT me to pick a side, a label, an identifier. And I resist. But why? Last night, it struck me, finally, as to why. An identifier is another form of control.
A few other elements and experiences have gone into this revelation. My partner waxed poetically about knowing me for so long (22 years....) and how he never imagined being with me. The idea of "me" as a continuity, as something that could be pinned down to represent my very essence, well, that just upset "me." Because even though I have, mentally, experienced "myself" this entire time, I don't even know exactly if there IS continuity of any sort internally. There's a narrative that I can create. Or that others can, to achieve some sort of "Huntress-ness" but is that really real?
Does this mean that my "authentic" self isn't...authentic? Well, no. Because even with authenticity, I don't believe that there is a one-true-self that anyone can achieve. Authenticity refers to the experience of being human, not the experience of being human AS Huntress S. Jackson, esq. Ha! Just kiddin...but seriously, what is more true than existence precedes essence when it really comes down to bare bones? We exist. Just like animals. Just like a tree. No better, no different in the grand scheme of things. Just as mortal and expendable. Which is what drives so many humans to madness. We'd rather do anything than admit to ourselves that we're "just talking meat" -quelle horreur! We're posting pictures of our sandwiches online to foster a connection to someone, anyone who might be listening. What the....?
At the end of Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness," the narrator Marlow lies to Kurtz's fiancée, telling her his last words were about her. In truth, his last words were ambiguous...perhaps lamenting what he'd become, perhaps about what he'd miss out on, or maybe more broadly, about the disturbing depths all of us are capable of reaching. Kurtz's labels as a successful captain, a well educated and civilized man were temporary, as temporary as we all are. Kurtz's authenticity was real in either chaper of his life - only his circumstances had changed so much that he appeared to be a completely different person to those who had not been with him as he made his transformation.
Is it dangerous to label one's self? Not necessarily. Is it naive? Potentially. As circumstances in your life progress, holding on to labels can keep you from being open to change. The easiest way to think about the trouble with labels is by using an example of a nrgative one. Think about negative self talk you might engage in on a daily basis - your nose is too big, you're overweight, your freckles are ugly...blah, blah. These labels might prevent you from being confident in your abilities. Or you might avoid talking to someone that you might really like. Using your labels to control your experience of the world is an easy trap to fall into, but in the end, it's not worth the effort it takes to constantly compartmentalize everything around you, including yourself because you're also cutting off possible new worlds.
A few other elements and experiences have gone into this revelation. My partner waxed poetically about knowing me for so long (22 years....) and how he never imagined being with me. The idea of "me" as a continuity, as something that could be pinned down to represent my very essence, well, that just upset "me." Because even though I have, mentally, experienced "myself" this entire time, I don't even know exactly if there IS continuity of any sort internally. There's a narrative that I can create. Or that others can, to achieve some sort of "Huntress-ness" but is that really real?
Does this mean that my "authentic" self isn't...authentic? Well, no. Because even with authenticity, I don't believe that there is a one-true-self that anyone can achieve. Authenticity refers to the experience of being human, not the experience of being human AS Huntress S. Jackson, esq. Ha! Just kiddin...but seriously, what is more true than existence precedes essence when it really comes down to bare bones? We exist. Just like animals. Just like a tree. No better, no different in the grand scheme of things. Just as mortal and expendable. Which is what drives so many humans to madness. We'd rather do anything than admit to ourselves that we're "just talking meat" -quelle horreur! We're posting pictures of our sandwiches online to foster a connection to someone, anyone who might be listening. What the....?
At the end of Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness," the narrator Marlow lies to Kurtz's fiancée, telling her his last words were about her. In truth, his last words were ambiguous...perhaps lamenting what he'd become, perhaps about what he'd miss out on, or maybe more broadly, about the disturbing depths all of us are capable of reaching. Kurtz's labels as a successful captain, a well educated and civilized man were temporary, as temporary as we all are. Kurtz's authenticity was real in either chaper of his life - only his circumstances had changed so much that he appeared to be a completely different person to those who had not been with him as he made his transformation.
Is it dangerous to label one's self? Not necessarily. Is it naive? Potentially. As circumstances in your life progress, holding on to labels can keep you from being open to change. The easiest way to think about the trouble with labels is by using an example of a nrgative one. Think about negative self talk you might engage in on a daily basis - your nose is too big, you're overweight, your freckles are ugly...blah, blah. These labels might prevent you from being confident in your abilities. Or you might avoid talking to someone that you might really like. Using your labels to control your experience of the world is an easy trap to fall into, but in the end, it's not worth the effort it takes to constantly compartmentalize everything around you, including yourself because you're also cutting off possible new worlds.
30 December 2014
The Final 14 Seconds of the Cosmic Calendar
I've written a bunch of posts on spirituality, the meaning of life, humans and human interaction, and yet, I continue to gravitate toward the subject. The learning is never over, and while watching the finale of "Avatar: the Last Airbender" (yes, the children's cartoon series), I was reminded of my queries all over again. I am going to quickly recap the moral struggle faced by Aang in the last episode:
The main character, and the last airbending nomad alive, Aang, is conflicted over how he will be able to defeat the scourge of humanity that is the Fire Lord. This guy is so in need of an ass-beating, it's insane. Everyone knows it, yet no one is powerful enough to defeat him except Aang, but Aang is doesn't want to kill him. Aang's crew, even his true love, Kitara, all want him to kill the Fire Lord to save the world. Conflicted, Aang, sleep-swims (?) to an island off the coast of the beach where he and his posse have set up base. When he wakes up on the island, he realizes that it's moving. He's far away from his friends, but tries to use the time to meditate and to reach his former lives. Even his past incarnations as the Avatar, including the previous airbender avatar, all ask him to consider sacrificing his convictions to save the world. Their arguments are based on ridding the world of evil and injustice, and rooted in utilitarianism. Logical and based in their own experiences as the avatar, Aang cannot deny their wisdom, but also cannot accept it.
Finally, he confronts a truly universal master, an ancient Lion-Turtle, whose back Aang has been riding on (it's so massive, it's an island). The Lion-Turtle, once a guardian of humanity, had something very interesting to impart on Aang, "The true mind can weather all lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can touch the poison of hatred without being harmed. From beginningless time, darkness thrives in the void, but always yields to purifying light. In the era before the Avatar, we bent not the elements, but the energy within ourselves. To bend another's energy, your own spirit must be unbendable, or you will be corrupted and destroyed."
Aang literally "sees the light" as the Lion-Turtle shows him how to bend pure energy. In his final battle against he fire lord, when given the opportunity to kill him, he does not. As any real villain would, the Fire Lord interprets this as weakness and tries to destroy Aang. Yet, Aang ultimately is able to bend the Fire Lord's energy to remove his ability to bend fire and wreak havoc on humanity. He takes away the Lord's abilities instead of killing him, leaving him to think about his abuses of power until he understands and accepts what he did.
I agree with Aang. I don't think I could kill someone even if they were evil and destructive. It's not my place to wield power like that, nor do I think it's any human's. Today we couch our killing in legal language to sanitize it, take the "messiness" out of it by ensuring no blood is spilled (in the US anyway), and call it "capital punishment." It's still expunging another life and it's still against most everything that is preached in every religion and moral code employed by humankind. Killing is killing. The STATE killed Murderer X, but we are the state. It's not some sort of external entity that we passively watch, although many of us do act like that.
My beliefs in this are only further strengthened by something that I saw/heard on the science program "Cosmos." Host Neil deGrasse Tyson was walking along a "cosmic calendar" to put into perspective universal versus human existence. Only in the last 14 seconds of the cosmic calendar do ALL recorded human events (re: history) exist. He says something so simple and yet so poignant, that I can't stop thinking about it. All the heroes, kings and queens, anyone we've ever known or have heard of, all did it in the last 14 seconds of the cosmic calendar (here's Carl Sagan saying it - and it makes me cry every fucking time). Wow. No, like seriously contemplate that. Wow. Recorded history is 14 seconds of almost 14 billion years of time. And to even understand the whole of what brought you (yes, YOU) here right now, is almost unimaginable.
How many twists and turns every atom that makes up your presence has gone through - how many life cycles of birth, death and rebirth (in some way), each particle, each cell has experienced to bring you to be here had to have happened an infinite number of times and could have turned out a similarly infinite number of ways. But it didn't - because you're here now. And I think that just makes me wonder what the hell we ARE doing - as a species, as a society, as individuals. ON ALL LEVELS. We're here because we're here and now what? We've been awakened to the vast beauty of the world around us only recently, and have squandered so much with our careless touch - even the destruction of ourselves.
And an argument for killing (notice I didn't use execute, or remove, or get rid of, but kill) rapists and murderers is that it's impractical to provide for them for the duration of their lives since they've wronged others. And yes, it's impractical if the key point of human society was to be efficient and tidy. But is it? The Nazis were pretty efficient. And no, I'm not conflating capital punishment with genocide, but utilitarian arguments have the same cold edge to me no matter the scale.
So now what? Way back in my first post, I joked that we needed a fascist of love to spread a new message. But I really don't think forcing anyone to do anything will ever work. Again, it's a clean and efficient way of working - force submission and expunge the outliers, but it isn't sustainable. It breeds more problems than it solves. Aang's crew, all those who supported his power, but questioned his sanity when he could not use it to destroy, were converted into believers when they saw how his choice played out. He didn't destroy the destructive force. He took away its power and yet showed acceptance of its existence. Maybe those "evil" beings that use their power for wrongdoing and self-gain need to experience the removal of their power, whether it be physical strength, intellectual acuity, money, et al. To sit and realize that they're HUMAN just like everyone else. That their power will fall one day - to another, stronger power, or even just to mortality. Our desire to create a name for ourselves, to live forever in the annals of history is laughable when we put it in perspective - the final 14 seconds of 14 billion years of time. And those 14 seconds won't mean much if humans aren't around to continue to propagate the message through time and space. Seems so futile and desolate if you look at it from an angle of self-preservation, but freeing and beautiful if you consider that you even got a chance to play at all.
The main character, and the last airbending nomad alive, Aang, is conflicted over how he will be able to defeat the scourge of humanity that is the Fire Lord. This guy is so in need of an ass-beating, it's insane. Everyone knows it, yet no one is powerful enough to defeat him except Aang, but Aang is doesn't want to kill him. Aang's crew, even his true love, Kitara, all want him to kill the Fire Lord to save the world. Conflicted, Aang, sleep-swims (?) to an island off the coast of the beach where he and his posse have set up base. When he wakes up on the island, he realizes that it's moving. He's far away from his friends, but tries to use the time to meditate and to reach his former lives. Even his past incarnations as the Avatar, including the previous airbender avatar, all ask him to consider sacrificing his convictions to save the world. Their arguments are based on ridding the world of evil and injustice, and rooted in utilitarianism. Logical and based in their own experiences as the avatar, Aang cannot deny their wisdom, but also cannot accept it.
Finally, he confronts a truly universal master, an ancient Lion-Turtle, whose back Aang has been riding on (it's so massive, it's an island). The Lion-Turtle, once a guardian of humanity, had something very interesting to impart on Aang, "The true mind can weather all lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can touch the poison of hatred without being harmed. From beginningless time, darkness thrives in the void, but always yields to purifying light. In the era before the Avatar, we bent not the elements, but the energy within ourselves. To bend another's energy, your own spirit must be unbendable, or you will be corrupted and destroyed."
Aang literally "sees the light" as the Lion-Turtle shows him how to bend pure energy. In his final battle against he fire lord, when given the opportunity to kill him, he does not. As any real villain would, the Fire Lord interprets this as weakness and tries to destroy Aang. Yet, Aang ultimately is able to bend the Fire Lord's energy to remove his ability to bend fire and wreak havoc on humanity. He takes away the Lord's abilities instead of killing him, leaving him to think about his abuses of power until he understands and accepts what he did.
I agree with Aang. I don't think I could kill someone even if they were evil and destructive. It's not my place to wield power like that, nor do I think it's any human's. Today we couch our killing in legal language to sanitize it, take the "messiness" out of it by ensuring no blood is spilled (in the US anyway), and call it "capital punishment." It's still expunging another life and it's still against most everything that is preached in every religion and moral code employed by humankind. Killing is killing. The STATE killed Murderer X, but we are the state. It's not some sort of external entity that we passively watch, although many of us do act like that.
My beliefs in this are only further strengthened by something that I saw/heard on the science program "Cosmos." Host Neil deGrasse Tyson was walking along a "cosmic calendar" to put into perspective universal versus human existence. Only in the last 14 seconds of the cosmic calendar do ALL recorded human events (re: history) exist. He says something so simple and yet so poignant, that I can't stop thinking about it. All the heroes, kings and queens, anyone we've ever known or have heard of, all did it in the last 14 seconds of the cosmic calendar (here's Carl Sagan saying it - and it makes me cry every fucking time). Wow. No, like seriously contemplate that. Wow. Recorded history is 14 seconds of almost 14 billion years of time. And to even understand the whole of what brought you (yes, YOU) here right now, is almost unimaginable.
How many twists and turns every atom that makes up your presence has gone through - how many life cycles of birth, death and rebirth (in some way), each particle, each cell has experienced to bring you to be here had to have happened an infinite number of times and could have turned out a similarly infinite number of ways. But it didn't - because you're here now. And I think that just makes me wonder what the hell we ARE doing - as a species, as a society, as individuals. ON ALL LEVELS. We're here because we're here and now what? We've been awakened to the vast beauty of the world around us only recently, and have squandered so much with our careless touch - even the destruction of ourselves.
And an argument for killing (notice I didn't use execute, or remove, or get rid of, but kill) rapists and murderers is that it's impractical to provide for them for the duration of their lives since they've wronged others. And yes, it's impractical if the key point of human society was to be efficient and tidy. But is it? The Nazis were pretty efficient. And no, I'm not conflating capital punishment with genocide, but utilitarian arguments have the same cold edge to me no matter the scale.
So now what? Way back in my first post, I joked that we needed a fascist of love to spread a new message. But I really don't think forcing anyone to do anything will ever work. Again, it's a clean and efficient way of working - force submission and expunge the outliers, but it isn't sustainable. It breeds more problems than it solves. Aang's crew, all those who supported his power, but questioned his sanity when he could not use it to destroy, were converted into believers when they saw how his choice played out. He didn't destroy the destructive force. He took away its power and yet showed acceptance of its existence. Maybe those "evil" beings that use their power for wrongdoing and self-gain need to experience the removal of their power, whether it be physical strength, intellectual acuity, money, et al. To sit and realize that they're HUMAN just like everyone else. That their power will fall one day - to another, stronger power, or even just to mortality. Our desire to create a name for ourselves, to live forever in the annals of history is laughable when we put it in perspective - the final 14 seconds of 14 billion years of time. And those 14 seconds won't mean much if humans aren't around to continue to propagate the message through time and space. Seems so futile and desolate if you look at it from an angle of self-preservation, but freeing and beautiful if you consider that you even got a chance to play at all.
09 December 2014
The Stranger
“But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads?”-Camus
When I get to points like this, there's little I can do or say to really make myself feel better besides laughing at the absurdity of everything.
'Cause right now, I'm like the Dude in this scene of The Big Lebowski and I need a "Stranger" to set me straight:
Why am I like this? I'm frustrated. At myself, at society, at humanity in general. Maybe a cynical eye is blinding me to the wonderful possibilities in this world, but it surely seems like the bad guys are winning. What does that even mean? The bad guys are winning? Am I living in a fucking soap opera? Thankfully, no, although I do understand the reason that people create drama - to entertain themselves and to distract from the ultimate downer, death (whoofa). In the past few weeks, I have been thinking about a few different aspects of life, but I haven't had cause enough to sit down and write a coherent, fluid post. Maybe this will end up being disjointed in the end, but maybe not. The two main threads I keep coming back to are "time" and "freedom."
Way back in the spring, in my initial post, I had contemplated pulling an all-out Thoreau, moving to some remote area and never looking back. While that urge has hit me more than a few times since then, I have yet to do so. Is it out of cowardice on my part? Or inertia? Or is it that I am not ready to give up on this path yet? In this pondering of why I haven't left for sincerely greener and more isolated pastures, I come back to the idea that I can find what I am looking for wherever, and can also find sadness, frustration and discontent wherever I run to. So if I move to Montana or the Yukon, my new locale will not solve my problems? Nope, not quite. But there is something that I think can be taken away right here, or wherever your "here" may be -that comes from this sort of quiet lifestyle, and that is the dissolution of time. Why does time seem to move more slowly in the American South? Or the countryside? Or, hmm, anywhere but a world-city like the NY-Metropolitan area? Because it actually does. There's not that infernal, constant ticking looming over every aspect of life in those areas further removed from the bustle of modern society. The tendrils of constant connectivity to the life-force of the city are weaker. Don't get me wrong - I love being in NYC. If I lived there, I would be OK with it. But I would probably have to walk a lot to be able to get out of the hustle-and-bustle headspace of the rat race.
Smashing our concept of time and its effect on our lives is something I am trying to cultivate. Can I speed through my chores to sit on a computer for an extra 20 minutes? Sure, but what if I just spent time actually peeling potatoes for the act of peeling potatoes? What would I get out of that? Would there be some sort of satisfaction in this rote action?
This practice of being present is a Zen realization on the importance of everything that you do, according to Alan Watts - “Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes.” Not especially enlightened or creative, but this type of mindfulness, I have found, is important in feeling as though you're not constantly under pressure. Similarly, and in a much lighter vein, according to Ron Swanson of Parks and Rec, I should never half-ass two things, but "whole-ass" one thing because the outcome will likely be more satisfying if done right. It's funny how libertarian, manly-man carnivore Swanson coincides with the Zen attitude that I admire and try to emulate, but I think it takes repeated efforts to show us humans that the way to contentedness always takes the same (but in a good way), measured steps even thought it may come to us in different packages (Alan Watts, Ron Swanson, Winnie the Pooh, The Dude, etc).
I go in and out of modes of being - sometimes I am pretty good at just "peeling the potatoes" and other times I am full of frenetic energy that leaves me wanting to punch through walls (or faces). This wildness, when trapped in our regimented social order, is a bad combination. It furthers my frustration, leading to feelings of despair and hopelessness. Millions of questions fly through my mind - how can people not SEE that this way of life is stifling creativity, destroying dreams, destroying the planet, etc? Is there a solution to this sort of trapped feeling? Yes and no. I don't expect everyone to sympathize or even understand the sentiments I am expressing here. Which is OK as long as others can even consider that there may be some alternatives to what we're doing now, as a society. This is what Rousseau was getting at with the corrupting nature of society. And for whatever reason, I am bad at suppressing these feelings sometimes. But that also begs the question, should I even have to?
Ultimately, "peeling potatoes" is what I need to continue to propagate within myself because the hours of worrying over all of the elements that I cannot control is truly a wearying, thankless task. I am in good company though because even Ron Swanson has had some missteps along the way of becoming a true master of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)