Saturday, November 14, 2009
And what will find the truth? Love, only Love
I like to think of myself is a tolerant man.
Definitions time!
(But before that, the song that I am alluding to in the title must be given due credit, U2 - Electrical Storm - so much awesomeness)
So often statements like the above are made without proper care to the definitions of the key terms. This can be problematic because even if the definitions of the speaker are only slightly different than the definitions of the listener, it can cause grave miscommunication. For example, if a soldier says "I am a man of peace", what he could mean is that I go to war to defend the future peace or a more profound peace than the present. A listener however could think that statement means is that the soldier is claiming to be a person who doesn't fight or who encourages non-violence, and thus the listener could label the soldier a liar or a hypocrite (or if the listener was a very bizarre person he could label the soldier a hippopotamus, but that assumption would probably be unrelated to what the soldier said). The miscommunication here is the definition, both denotative (as in what the literal meaning is) and connotative (as in what ideas and feelings are associated with that meaning), of the word "peace".
In fact, given the uniqueness of everyone's minds, and the immense power of feelings and unspoken ideas to shape our understandings, all meaningful communication contains a degree of miscommunication, especially since even in efforts to clarify the miscommunication we must invoke words/phrases/ideas which are just as likely to be misunderstood.
Yet by expressing ourselves fully (and clearly as well, though with my tendency for rambling that's not going to happen), we can misunderstand less. So before explaining what implications I draw from my sentence "I like to think of myself is a tolerant man.", let me clarify a little my definition of tolerance.
What I believe tolerance means is that you do not consider it a personal flaw to be wrong, and you do not let someone's wrong-ness in one aspect affect all aspects of your relationship. That may sound profoundly intolerant, but let me expand. People hold different views, and even if you can say everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if you are (more or less) certain that point A is right, and point B is opposed to point A, you must (implicitly or explicitly) hold that point B is wrong. Thus even if someone else is entitled to believe point B, if they hold point B, you must consider them wrong on the matter, or reduce the degree of your certainty to just a matter of being certain of point A in the limited ways it applies to you (that is if you think stealing is wrong, but you refuse to admit that this implies that those who feel stealing is okay are wrong, what you really are believing is not that stealing is wrong, but that you stealing is wrong, you just aren't admitting to yourself the real truth of what you believe).
Thus the only way a man of beliefs and ideals can be tolerant is to accept that others can be wrong. And this isn't really so hard, since yes, you too can be wrong. Admitting that you can be wrong isn't a contradiction to believing you are right. After all, if you go outside for a walk, you don't think you'll be mugged, but even in the safest neighborhood, you might get mugged. Moreover, maybe based on limited information, or a flawed thinking process, or maybe bad luck, you can miscalculate the chance of you getting mugged. So you can be wrong, I can be wrong, and that's okay.
But then again, why? Why is it okay? Well, here is something I believe, and as the center of all my beliefs, it is the thing I am most certain I am right on, in fact it is perhaps one thing I don't think I could be convinced that I am wrong on.
That above all else, Love is supreme.
Intertwined with this:
There is a loving God in charge of the universe.
Could I be convinced otherwise? I doubt it. I'm not going to say that I couldn't be wrong on this point, because I admit my mind is not infinite, perhaps there's some way I haven't thought of that I could be convinced otherwise. But this I believe.
Thus above all disagreements, Love must prevail, and thus I strive to be tolerant even when I believe in all earnestness that the other is wrong.
Now let me draw out the implications of "I like to think of myself as a tolerant man."
The implication is tolerance is cool. So don't be an intolerant bum, yeah I'm talking to you Raj Thackeray! (now this may seem like a contradiction, but idiotic bum-iness is the natural outgrowth of a lack of tolerance, as shown by Raj Thackeray, so while I do not hold that this inherently dehumanizes him or that this proves him wrong in other aspects of his person, he is an idiotic bum (actually I'm just kidding, he may very well be a smart man, and may very well be a hard-worker, however the idea of intolerance that he holds is idiotic, wrong and full of bum-iness, and while I believe in tolerance for people, I do not mind saying that some ideas (not people mind you, whether or not they support this idea), ought be given a savage beating for their extreme idiotic-ness (again NOT people, beating people due to politics is also a very idiotic idea)).
Definitions time!
(But before that, the song that I am alluding to in the title must be given due credit, U2 - Electrical Storm - so much awesomeness)
So often statements like the above are made without proper care to the definitions of the key terms. This can be problematic because even if the definitions of the speaker are only slightly different than the definitions of the listener, it can cause grave miscommunication. For example, if a soldier says "I am a man of peace", what he could mean is that I go to war to defend the future peace or a more profound peace than the present. A listener however could think that statement means is that the soldier is claiming to be a person who doesn't fight or who encourages non-violence, and thus the listener could label the soldier a liar or a hypocrite (or if the listener was a very bizarre person he could label the soldier a hippopotamus, but that assumption would probably be unrelated to what the soldier said). The miscommunication here is the definition, both denotative (as in what the literal meaning is) and connotative (as in what ideas and feelings are associated with that meaning), of the word "peace".
In fact, given the uniqueness of everyone's minds, and the immense power of feelings and unspoken ideas to shape our understandings, all meaningful communication contains a degree of miscommunication, especially since even in efforts to clarify the miscommunication we must invoke words/phrases/ideas which are just as likely to be misunderstood.
Yet by expressing ourselves fully (and clearly as well, though with my tendency for rambling that's not going to happen), we can misunderstand less. So before explaining what implications I draw from my sentence "I like to think of myself is a tolerant man.", let me clarify a little my definition of tolerance.
What I believe tolerance means is that you do not consider it a personal flaw to be wrong, and you do not let someone's wrong-ness in one aspect affect all aspects of your relationship. That may sound profoundly intolerant, but let me expand. People hold different views, and even if you can say everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if you are (more or less) certain that point A is right, and point B is opposed to point A, you must (implicitly or explicitly) hold that point B is wrong. Thus even if someone else is entitled to believe point B, if they hold point B, you must consider them wrong on the matter, or reduce the degree of your certainty to just a matter of being certain of point A in the limited ways it applies to you (that is if you think stealing is wrong, but you refuse to admit that this implies that those who feel stealing is okay are wrong, what you really are believing is not that stealing is wrong, but that you stealing is wrong, you just aren't admitting to yourself the real truth of what you believe).
Thus the only way a man of beliefs and ideals can be tolerant is to accept that others can be wrong. And this isn't really so hard, since yes, you too can be wrong. Admitting that you can be wrong isn't a contradiction to believing you are right. After all, if you go outside for a walk, you don't think you'll be mugged, but even in the safest neighborhood, you might get mugged. Moreover, maybe based on limited information, or a flawed thinking process, or maybe bad luck, you can miscalculate the chance of you getting mugged. So you can be wrong, I can be wrong, and that's okay.
But then again, why? Why is it okay? Well, here is something I believe, and as the center of all my beliefs, it is the thing I am most certain I am right on, in fact it is perhaps one thing I don't think I could be convinced that I am wrong on.
That above all else, Love is supreme.
Intertwined with this:
There is a loving God in charge of the universe.
Could I be convinced otherwise? I doubt it. I'm not going to say that I couldn't be wrong on this point, because I admit my mind is not infinite, perhaps there's some way I haven't thought of that I could be convinced otherwise. But this I believe.
Thus above all disagreements, Love must prevail, and thus I strive to be tolerant even when I believe in all earnestness that the other is wrong.
Now let me draw out the implications of "I like to think of myself as a tolerant man."
The implication is tolerance is cool. So don't be an intolerant bum, yeah I'm talking to you Raj Thackeray! (now this may seem like a contradiction, but idiotic bum-iness is the natural outgrowth of a lack of tolerance, as shown by Raj Thackeray, so while I do not hold that this inherently dehumanizes him or that this proves him wrong in other aspects of his person, he is an idiotic bum (actually I'm just kidding, he may very well be a smart man, and may very well be a hard-worker, however the idea of intolerance that he holds is idiotic, wrong and full of bum-iness, and while I believe in tolerance for people, I do not mind saying that some ideas (not people mind you, whether or not they support this idea), ought be given a savage beating for their extreme idiotic-ness (again NOT people, beating people due to politics is also a very idiotic idea)).
Labels:
definition,
India,
Life,
Philosophy,
Politics,
Raj Thakeray,
relationships,
religion,
tolerance
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The politics of the fool
I often repeat myself in sessions, often because a point reoccurs to me and I forgot that I dealt with it before, or in better cases because I figure out another angle on something. Now even in the latter case one must be careful lest laziness and the recursion of revisiting revisted topics lead to madness and rather poor reading, however, given the complexity of the human mind, a good topic often deserves more than one angle and more than one session to boot.
But who then can determine whether the booting requires the revisiting or whether upon that road lies madness, madness! I CAN, for I am Rand, the great and glorious.
And so I shall revisit the fool, or rather my fool-ness or fool-i-ocity, or if you insist on the grammatical, my foolishness.
I've dealt with the topic as an ideal (dedicated to God, of course), but let me now migrate a bit into the practical, or perhaps the pragmatic, or perhaps just the otherwise.
At this point in my life, I'm rather satisfied with the role of the fool, with some qualifications and ample wiggle room. Indeed, I do aspire to the path of the holy fool. However, it is not necessarily my natural role, largely because there is only a minor fraction of our souls presented in our outward faces, thus one can fit many of these fractions in a mind, and thus many roles can be elegantly natural.
That is to say, I can play other roles.
I can play the insistent idealist, the apathetic pragmatist, the careful politician, the passionate artist, the dedicated scientist, and the austere monk. And I do play these roles all from time to time, and more.
But when push comes to shove, my default face to the world is that of the fool. For better or for worse. For now.
I can justify this position in a variety of ways. I find it grating to take myself too seriously, moreover I find it grating to take others too seriously, yet I hate to offend, and I hate to cause trouble. But most importantly, the fool does tend to entertain.
This is a principle point. I like making people happy. I enjoy the happiness of others. I like interacting with happy people. And me playing the fool often makes people happy.
Though to be truthful sometimes I wonder, whether people actually do enjoy the act, and as importantly whether they like the sincerity behind it. Because as much as my fool-ness is an act, it is an act based on my thoughts and feelings, essentially it is me expressing myself. And in that sense, it is me being myself.
On the other hand, I could for example be myself by throwing myself 110% into writing, however... being a writer or an artist, while requiring one to draw upon others, is an essentially solitary craft. That's fine when I'm alone, but to make this the face I use to interact with others would risk pushing others into roles relative to my artistic drives and ambitions, denying them a real relationship based on mutual humanity. That is not to say others have not taken the writer role and ran with it, limiting its excesses so that their relationships are full and rich while mining its virtues for all that they can get... I'm just saying that as a public face, I don't think the writer is for me.
I could go through many other roles and pick them apart. I can also pick apart the role of the fool, for example the barriers it throws against me being taken seriously or being able to deal with people seriously.
What it comes down to, with the pluses and minuses, is how comfortable you are with dealing with the minuses, and how much you like the pluses, and ultimately, how much God wants you to follow that path. To be fair that's a lot of factors that are hard to figure out all in their wholeness. Hence one often bounces between things back and forth and finds revelations and insights and mistakes, and so on and so on, et al.
One thing you also fine with roles that fit you better or worse, is those that don't fit you at all. I've tried playing the counter-cultural, the over-achiever, the techie. Parts work alright for me, but I find only a minimal passion. Ususally to find some real satisfaction I need to mix it up with some foolishness.
And this is an aspect of my problems with my life at now. To say overall, I must say the work environment doesn't suit me well. I am every now and then able to pull out my fool card, but there's an essentially lacking element for me to comfortably play that role, or really any role with satisfaction. To have some satisfaction in my human interactions I must have some confidence that how I interact with people is either appreciated or at least enjoyed in a general sense, and I must have some confidence that my faux pas's, my miscalculated gestures, my inarticulate attempts at communication, these will be generally tolerated. That is actually a rather heavy demand to require of everyone, and so I don't. But for me that is the basis of a real, meaningful relationship, otherwise all you have is confused postering.
The work environment seems to lend itself to the confused postering. Afterall, a faux pas can get you fired. But moreover, there is this great ambiguity about relationships. What is the proper ettiquette of a professional relationship, what is too far, how do these relationships weigh and interact with other ones, how do these fit into life outside of work. It doesn't help that my professional role has no real need to inteact with anyone besides my boss, so what is the professional relationship of coworkers who have no professional need to interact. I am always perpetually insecure with my relationships, but with my professional relationships, I find it is a constant drain of stress. And this isn't the fault of anyone, this is just the nature of me and my circumstances.
Let me backtrack, with most people in the office, there is a degree to which they approach that mark of trust where I find my relationships both meaningful and comfortable, and there are some who are just easy to deal with and wonderful to be around. But as a whole... as a whole work is stress, there are times when it is less stressful, and I sometimes wonder if work could be otherwise... but then again, in the long run, perhaps that's irrelevant. Afterall, work is but so many hours, and life is so many more, and in those hours I should be able to find time to play the fool.
But then again I wonder... I am undecided the extent to which I want to write off some degree of comfortableness at work. Moreover, if I can hit that degree of comfortableness, there is a good chance that I harnest a general affection for the people at my office toward feeling more satisfied with work, and yet... It is all so complex, the hodgepodge of different emotions and thoughts that run an office's social ecosystem, and my tradition has been to step back and create my own social ecosystem when my frustration with my current one runs too high. But with work, I don't really have the option of stepping back...
But then what would the fool do? If I really do aspire to the path of the holy fool, what ought I do. More importantly, and in all seriousness what would Jesus do?
The answer is a path of love, but here's the question, does that path lead me deeper into the office-universe or further away?
I am not idle on this question, but I am ambivalent, but in the end, I am also awesome.
Which does give me the edge.
And so despite my confusion, despite my cowardly indecision, despite my frustration, I still must ask myself in the morning, how can I be a fool today?
So anywho, take it to your head, take it to your heart and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight folks!
And God Bless.
But who then can determine whether the booting requires the revisiting or whether upon that road lies madness, madness! I CAN, for I am Rand, the great and glorious.
And so I shall revisit the fool, or rather my fool-ness or fool-i-ocity, or if you insist on the grammatical, my foolishness.
I've dealt with the topic as an ideal (dedicated to God, of course), but let me now migrate a bit into the practical, or perhaps the pragmatic, or perhaps just the otherwise.
At this point in my life, I'm rather satisfied with the role of the fool, with some qualifications and ample wiggle room. Indeed, I do aspire to the path of the holy fool. However, it is not necessarily my natural role, largely because there is only a minor fraction of our souls presented in our outward faces, thus one can fit many of these fractions in a mind, and thus many roles can be elegantly natural.
That is to say, I can play other roles.
I can play the insistent idealist, the apathetic pragmatist, the careful politician, the passionate artist, the dedicated scientist, and the austere monk. And I do play these roles all from time to time, and more.
But when push comes to shove, my default face to the world is that of the fool. For better or for worse. For now.
I can justify this position in a variety of ways. I find it grating to take myself too seriously, moreover I find it grating to take others too seriously, yet I hate to offend, and I hate to cause trouble. But most importantly, the fool does tend to entertain.
This is a principle point. I like making people happy. I enjoy the happiness of others. I like interacting with happy people. And me playing the fool often makes people happy.
Though to be truthful sometimes I wonder, whether people actually do enjoy the act, and as importantly whether they like the sincerity behind it. Because as much as my fool-ness is an act, it is an act based on my thoughts and feelings, essentially it is me expressing myself. And in that sense, it is me being myself.
On the other hand, I could for example be myself by throwing myself 110% into writing, however... being a writer or an artist, while requiring one to draw upon others, is an essentially solitary craft. That's fine when I'm alone, but to make this the face I use to interact with others would risk pushing others into roles relative to my artistic drives and ambitions, denying them a real relationship based on mutual humanity. That is not to say others have not taken the writer role and ran with it, limiting its excesses so that their relationships are full and rich while mining its virtues for all that they can get... I'm just saying that as a public face, I don't think the writer is for me.
I could go through many other roles and pick them apart. I can also pick apart the role of the fool, for example the barriers it throws against me being taken seriously or being able to deal with people seriously.
What it comes down to, with the pluses and minuses, is how comfortable you are with dealing with the minuses, and how much you like the pluses, and ultimately, how much God wants you to follow that path. To be fair that's a lot of factors that are hard to figure out all in their wholeness. Hence one often bounces between things back and forth and finds revelations and insights and mistakes, and so on and so on, et al.
One thing you also fine with roles that fit you better or worse, is those that don't fit you at all. I've tried playing the counter-cultural, the over-achiever, the techie. Parts work alright for me, but I find only a minimal passion. Ususally to find some real satisfaction I need to mix it up with some foolishness.
And this is an aspect of my problems with my life at now. To say overall, I must say the work environment doesn't suit me well. I am every now and then able to pull out my fool card, but there's an essentially lacking element for me to comfortably play that role, or really any role with satisfaction. To have some satisfaction in my human interactions I must have some confidence that how I interact with people is either appreciated or at least enjoyed in a general sense, and I must have some confidence that my faux pas's, my miscalculated gestures, my inarticulate attempts at communication, these will be generally tolerated. That is actually a rather heavy demand to require of everyone, and so I don't. But for me that is the basis of a real, meaningful relationship, otherwise all you have is confused postering.
The work environment seems to lend itself to the confused postering. Afterall, a faux pas can get you fired. But moreover, there is this great ambiguity about relationships. What is the proper ettiquette of a professional relationship, what is too far, how do these relationships weigh and interact with other ones, how do these fit into life outside of work. It doesn't help that my professional role has no real need to inteact with anyone besides my boss, so what is the professional relationship of coworkers who have no professional need to interact. I am always perpetually insecure with my relationships, but with my professional relationships, I find it is a constant drain of stress. And this isn't the fault of anyone, this is just the nature of me and my circumstances.
Let me backtrack, with most people in the office, there is a degree to which they approach that mark of trust where I find my relationships both meaningful and comfortable, and there are some who are just easy to deal with and wonderful to be around. But as a whole... as a whole work is stress, there are times when it is less stressful, and I sometimes wonder if work could be otherwise... but then again, in the long run, perhaps that's irrelevant. Afterall, work is but so many hours, and life is so many more, and in those hours I should be able to find time to play the fool.
But then again I wonder... I am undecided the extent to which I want to write off some degree of comfortableness at work. Moreover, if I can hit that degree of comfortableness, there is a good chance that I harnest a general affection for the people at my office toward feeling more satisfied with work, and yet... It is all so complex, the hodgepodge of different emotions and thoughts that run an office's social ecosystem, and my tradition has been to step back and create my own social ecosystem when my frustration with my current one runs too high. But with work, I don't really have the option of stepping back...
But then what would the fool do? If I really do aspire to the path of the holy fool, what ought I do. More importantly, and in all seriousness what would Jesus do?
The answer is a path of love, but here's the question, does that path lead me deeper into the office-universe or further away?
I am not idle on this question, but I am ambivalent, but in the end, I am also awesome.
Which does give me the edge.
And so despite my confusion, despite my cowardly indecision, despite my frustration, I still must ask myself in the morning, how can I be a fool today?
So anywho, take it to your head, take it to your heart and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight folks!
And God Bless.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Because me, myself, I come and go
Excuse the bubbliness of this post, it's actually something I wrote some time ago, which doesn't really explain anything, since as bubbliness goes, it comes and goes, it comes and goes... karma...karma..karma..karma chameleon...
Anywho...
Welcome to the wonderful world of Rand! It's been a while since I've started out with a greeting so I thought I'd spit one out. Anyways when I'm depressed, apathetic, feeling empty or any combination of the three (there are differences between the three but the differences do not constitute a barrier, they are more like shades of being really screwed up) I can only watch certain TV shows. Simpsons always, and Scrubs usually. Other shows I tend to get tired of very quickly even if they are shows I love and I can see that they are high quality and that on normal occassions I would love to watch them.
I think why the Simpsons is so easy to watch is because it never gets too serious and because it is just completely hilarious. Also there's nostalgic value. Even that said, there are certain episodes I can't watch. Lisa's Rival for example I can't watch, probably because I don't like seeing Lisa suffering, even if the episode is pretty good (the most awesome gag is Bart getting Milhouse on the FBI's Most Wanted List and then tipping the FBI off and finally the Fugitive scene). But most of the episodes of the Simpsons have such non-stop crazy off the wall humor that it's very easy to watch, and very easy on the nerves.
Scrubs also has a lot of that crazy off the wall humor and maybe that's why it's easy to watch. But what's strange is that it is also a semi-dramatic show, and in most cases dramas are the first to go when my depression interferes with my tv watching. Scrubs involves death, character growth, etc., so it's strange that when my mind is in a state that usually wants to avoid anything actually pulling at the emotions it should choose Scrubs. But maybe its the fact when Scrubs pulls at you, it pulls at you in situations that it depicts as ordinary. Thus you don't have to dig into your heart for emotions you weren't prepared for and for extraordinary variants of those emotions, the ordinary sort of sadness is appropriate, the ordinary sort of self-reflection is alright. That said, there are still certain Scrubs episodes I can't watch, I haven't been able to get myself to watch My Own Personal Jesus even though it's an episode I'd really like to watch. (On the other hand this theory might be completely off or it might be a combination of this plus most of the sadness is not critical of the characters which allows me to feel that emotion without feeling the pull of sympathetic guilt, which may be what I'm really trying to avoid, maybe, I'm not sure, one can never truly stare into their head and completely understand it, Godel actually proved that.)
I write this for a couple reasons, first of all, this is what's in my head right now, secondly, this is one of those odd little things about how my mind works that I and hopefully some of you find fascinating, thirdly, I take my tv watching pretty seriously. Well, maybe not that seriously, I can enjoy it without analyzing it. But tv provokes me, it touches me, it keeps my mind active by pulling out emotions that were inactive, forcing me to think out jokes and dramatic situations, and sparking my imagination. To rebuke those who say tv kills imagination, I'd say my imagination is build up by tv. I'm able to access the ideas, words, and images of tv to build up my ideas, to use as inspiration. Many of jokes were inspired (although not necessarily copied) from the Simpsons. I only really thought of robotic life after watching transformers. My first ideas about mecha only came after watching Gundam Wing. My ideas about the fantasy epic really took off only after watching Record of Lodoss War. But my ideas did not stay derivitive copies of these tv shows, rather they evolved into other directions, sometimes making them untracable to their origin. On the shoulders of these giants my ideas stand. Some may argue books can play the same role, and they can, but tv provides images, which helps my imagination imagine images built on those of tv, that is not to say that books are worse, books force my mind to imagine my own images, on the other hand tv helps my mind imagine more complex images, and anyways, the worth of a story depends most importantly on the story not the medium.
Some would argue that it is best for the mind to be untainted by tv so it can imagine ideas completely original. I remember a story by Orson Scott Card called "Unaccompanied Sonata," it is an amazing story and everyone should read it. Among the many concepts it contained (although this was not the theme, but rather a background concept, and it didn't really recommend this so much as say this was how the world of this story worked) was the idea that a musician to be truely original had to be completely cut off from any music. When the musician of the story did hear music suddenly he started altering his music based on what he heard, making it in some way just a little derivative. Because of this he was cast out of music. The idea is intriguing, but I like the idea that just like science art can build upon itself. Yes, it is interesting to see fresh perspectives from those who haven't studied the art (and I use art in a broad way including tv, books, etc.), but those who have studied art can build on the past, learning from the flaws and successes to perfect the art. Yes, things will be a little derivative in some ways, but honestly, I'm not afraid of things being a little derivative, as long as it's done well. TV is just like any other art in the fact that it can offer ideas, words and images which can be used to build more stories and art. So I do watch tv with pride and appreciation, at its best it is art, and it is wonderful.
And on a more personal note, when I'm really depressed sometimes TV with the ideas it gives me helps push me out of my depression just like a book might or a painting might. On the other hand, tv does provide a distraction, which has cost me much time, but no blessing in this world is without its drawbacks. Yet I think tv is most definitely worth its drawbacks.
That's about all I want to say about that, so take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
And God Bless.
Anywho...
Welcome to the wonderful world of Rand! It's been a while since I've started out with a greeting so I thought I'd spit one out. Anyways when I'm depressed, apathetic, feeling empty or any combination of the three (there are differences between the three but the differences do not constitute a barrier, they are more like shades of being really screwed up) I can only watch certain TV shows. Simpsons always, and Scrubs usually. Other shows I tend to get tired of very quickly even if they are shows I love and I can see that they are high quality and that on normal occassions I would love to watch them.
I think why the Simpsons is so easy to watch is because it never gets too serious and because it is just completely hilarious. Also there's nostalgic value. Even that said, there are certain episodes I can't watch. Lisa's Rival for example I can't watch, probably because I don't like seeing Lisa suffering, even if the episode is pretty good (the most awesome gag is Bart getting Milhouse on the FBI's Most Wanted List and then tipping the FBI off and finally the Fugitive scene). But most of the episodes of the Simpsons have such non-stop crazy off the wall humor that it's very easy to watch, and very easy on the nerves.
Scrubs also has a lot of that crazy off the wall humor and maybe that's why it's easy to watch. But what's strange is that it is also a semi-dramatic show, and in most cases dramas are the first to go when my depression interferes with my tv watching. Scrubs involves death, character growth, etc., so it's strange that when my mind is in a state that usually wants to avoid anything actually pulling at the emotions it should choose Scrubs. But maybe its the fact when Scrubs pulls at you, it pulls at you in situations that it depicts as ordinary. Thus you don't have to dig into your heart for emotions you weren't prepared for and for extraordinary variants of those emotions, the ordinary sort of sadness is appropriate, the ordinary sort of self-reflection is alright. That said, there are still certain Scrubs episodes I can't watch, I haven't been able to get myself to watch My Own Personal Jesus even though it's an episode I'd really like to watch. (On the other hand this theory might be completely off or it might be a combination of this plus most of the sadness is not critical of the characters which allows me to feel that emotion without feeling the pull of sympathetic guilt, which may be what I'm really trying to avoid, maybe, I'm not sure, one can never truly stare into their head and completely understand it, Godel actually proved that.)
I write this for a couple reasons, first of all, this is what's in my head right now, secondly, this is one of those odd little things about how my mind works that I and hopefully some of you find fascinating, thirdly, I take my tv watching pretty seriously. Well, maybe not that seriously, I can enjoy it without analyzing it. But tv provokes me, it touches me, it keeps my mind active by pulling out emotions that were inactive, forcing me to think out jokes and dramatic situations, and sparking my imagination. To rebuke those who say tv kills imagination, I'd say my imagination is build up by tv. I'm able to access the ideas, words, and images of tv to build up my ideas, to use as inspiration. Many of jokes were inspired (although not necessarily copied) from the Simpsons. I only really thought of robotic life after watching transformers. My first ideas about mecha only came after watching Gundam Wing. My ideas about the fantasy epic really took off only after watching Record of Lodoss War. But my ideas did not stay derivitive copies of these tv shows, rather they evolved into other directions, sometimes making them untracable to their origin. On the shoulders of these giants my ideas stand. Some may argue books can play the same role, and they can, but tv provides images, which helps my imagination imagine images built on those of tv, that is not to say that books are worse, books force my mind to imagine my own images, on the other hand tv helps my mind imagine more complex images, and anyways, the worth of a story depends most importantly on the story not the medium.
Some would argue that it is best for the mind to be untainted by tv so it can imagine ideas completely original. I remember a story by Orson Scott Card called "Unaccompanied Sonata," it is an amazing story and everyone should read it. Among the many concepts it contained (although this was not the theme, but rather a background concept, and it didn't really recommend this so much as say this was how the world of this story worked) was the idea that a musician to be truely original had to be completely cut off from any music. When the musician of the story did hear music suddenly he started altering his music based on what he heard, making it in some way just a little derivative. Because of this he was cast out of music. The idea is intriguing, but I like the idea that just like science art can build upon itself. Yes, it is interesting to see fresh perspectives from those who haven't studied the art (and I use art in a broad way including tv, books, etc.), but those who have studied art can build on the past, learning from the flaws and successes to perfect the art. Yes, things will be a little derivative in some ways, but honestly, I'm not afraid of things being a little derivative, as long as it's done well. TV is just like any other art in the fact that it can offer ideas, words and images which can be used to build more stories and art. So I do watch tv with pride and appreciation, at its best it is art, and it is wonderful.
And on a more personal note, when I'm really depressed sometimes TV with the ideas it gives me helps push me out of my depression just like a book might or a painting might. On the other hand, tv does provide a distraction, which has cost me much time, but no blessing in this world is without its drawbacks. Yet I think tv is most definitely worth its drawbacks.
That's about all I want to say about that, so take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
And God Bless.
Labels:
anxiety,
arts,
culture club,
karma chameleon,
Life,
mood,
Scrubs,
Simpsons,
tv,
writing
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Jersey City's got the Awesome
Hence I've made a calendar. Because calendars' are awesome and it's important to spread the awesome.
Google Calendar-ized
-
Google Calendar-ized
-
Labels:
calendar,
events,
Fun,
Jersey City,
Karaoke,
Life,
New Jersey,
new york city
Because even in the Calendar one can turn the page
Unless your on the web, unless you count turning the web page and I don't, but still here's a calendar:
| 2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Patience
If I wait
For my hope to return
I will lack the time to carve out a future,
and I will curse the present.
So even with despair nestled in my skull,
I must prepare
to be born again,
Just as when living
I must prepare to die again.
With the cyclical disease
granting depression and ecstasy,
I die and am born again and again.
I do not reincarnate,
But when my feelings run low
I destroy my life,
I rush myself towards death,
and if I recover
I pull myself together,
I force myself to move towards life.
If I try to understand
why I am this way
and what exactly is wrong,
I will wonder for a lifetime
and I will one day look back
and I will see that my disease has spent my human moment.
I have to move,
I must bring energy to my limbs,
I must force blood into my brain,
I have to restore my soul to my body,
I must make myself hope now and forever.
- Rand
For my hope to return
I will lack the time to carve out a future,
and I will curse the present.
So even with despair nestled in my skull,
I must prepare
to be born again,
Just as when living
I must prepare to die again.
With the cyclical disease
granting depression and ecstasy,
I die and am born again and again.
I do not reincarnate,
But when my feelings run low
I destroy my life,
I rush myself towards death,
and if I recover
I pull myself together,
I force myself to move towards life.
If I try to understand
why I am this way
and what exactly is wrong,
I will wonder for a lifetime
and I will one day look back
and I will see that my disease has spent my human moment.
I have to move,
I must bring energy to my limbs,
I must force blood into my brain,
I have to restore my soul to my body,
I must make myself hope now and forever.
- Rand
Monday, November 2, 2009
Blaze ye stars, let me not see you whimper
And what now of the next chapter of Rand?
I wonder...
It's actually becoming rather repetitive to find myself on the verge of a life-revamp. Which in fact does make some sense given that I have a lot of potential to certain matters, but have a tendency toward certain repeated mistakes, and have certain issues holding me back...ie...
I AM MAN OF FIRE AND ICE!
Or something of the like.
Still, as I look to the future, I wonder what will I become...
Certainly I can strive to do good, to follow God always...
But what will God have me be...
A man of love, or who bears the weight of the lonely?
A man of passion or careful analysis?
A creature of action or an advisor to thought?
What...?
One of the most challenging facets of a trusting faith in God, is you must remain trusting even when you do not know the slightest detail of the plan. But He is in charge, and trusting in Him, I can be sure of this, His love will be with me, and that will be enough.
And if I can keep that in mind in times where I'm tending to forget it...
Well, there's always someway back, love, always love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0adFYuNuns
I wonder...
It's actually becoming rather repetitive to find myself on the verge of a life-revamp. Which in fact does make some sense given that I have a lot of potential to certain matters, but have a tendency toward certain repeated mistakes, and have certain issues holding me back...ie...
I AM MAN OF FIRE AND ICE!
Or something of the like.
Still, as I look to the future, I wonder what will I become...
Certainly I can strive to do good, to follow God always...
But what will God have me be...
A man of love, or who bears the weight of the lonely?
A man of passion or careful analysis?
A creature of action or an advisor to thought?
What...?
One of the most challenging facets of a trusting faith in God, is you must remain trusting even when you do not know the slightest detail of the plan. But He is in charge, and trusting in Him, I can be sure of this, His love will be with me, and that will be enough.
And if I can keep that in mind in times where I'm tending to forget it...
Well, there's always someway back, love, always love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0adFYuNuns
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)