January 28, 2011
April 26, 2010
I've found it!
Honesty is a lot harder to justify than it should be. I used to (and still kind of do) go on the Kantian tenet that honesty is a person's moral duty, for to be dishonest is to rob others of their autonomy--their ability to make choices is compromised when presented with false information. But there was just something about this argument that never seemed to anchor the case for honesty. Perhaps it was that Kant's categorical imperatives contained a critical flaw that leveled their otherwise strong foundation; perhaps it is because being honest is not always the best decision for every situation; perhaps because sometimes a person should have their autonomy compromised. Nevertheless, the idea that being honest is simply The Right Thing To Do still seems to be admirable and just, just not as dominantly as it should.
Enter a conversation I had with my good friend Curtis three days ago. We had got on the topic of self-awareness and self-certainty in contrast with their opposites (insecurity and vacuousness), and we came to the conclusion that people who are self-aware are typically more honest than those who are not. People who shy away from introspection seem to rely more on the outside world to affirm their identity, which leads one to lie more frequently, since they desire--and sometimes require--the approval of others. And while I pondered why someone would ever want to live a life of perpetual lies as I often do, it hit me: it's a problem of information.
When a person creates a lie, they've created something cheap and fragile. A lie can be shattered at any moment; it doesn't provide any solid information. So, in order to maintain a lie, several other lies must be created to provide a web of misinformation to support the initial, dubious manifestation. It becomes systemic, since the misinformation is always on the brink of being struck down by truth.
On the other side, when a person is honest, either with themselves or others, they create or discover something of value, something factual. The more facts a person discovers, the more information they obtain. The more information a person obtains, the better choices they can make. The person who lies creates a scarcity of information for themselves, and is unable to make good choices that benefit them and others.
(Of course, being honest doesn't always mean you'll arrive at truth, and it's possibly to tell a serendipitous lie, but more often than not, honesty will yield far more useful results than dishonesty.)
So you see, the strength of this argument lies in the utility of being honest. Sure being honest is the respectful thing to do, but more importantly it is the useful thing to do. When you are honest you provide yourself and others with information that will help you make beneficial decisions. The more you lie, the less you know, and the more you'll find yourself in stressful, compromising positions.
And it's that simple. That's pretty much all there is to the argument. Of course I'm not advocating this as an absolute rule. I'm sure there are instances where the usefulness of being honest can be superseded by a different reason, or where the usefulness of being honest can prove detrimental; but those are the exceptions, and they will always be in the small minority.
Enter a conversation I had with my good friend Curtis three days ago. We had got on the topic of self-awareness and self-certainty in contrast with their opposites (insecurity and vacuousness), and we came to the conclusion that people who are self-aware are typically more honest than those who are not. People who shy away from introspection seem to rely more on the outside world to affirm their identity, which leads one to lie more frequently, since they desire--and sometimes require--the approval of others. And while I pondered why someone would ever want to live a life of perpetual lies as I often do, it hit me: it's a problem of information.
When a person creates a lie, they've created something cheap and fragile. A lie can be shattered at any moment; it doesn't provide any solid information. So, in order to maintain a lie, several other lies must be created to provide a web of misinformation to support the initial, dubious manifestation. It becomes systemic, since the misinformation is always on the brink of being struck down by truth.
On the other side, when a person is honest, either with themselves or others, they create or discover something of value, something factual. The more facts a person discovers, the more information they obtain. The more information a person obtains, the better choices they can make. The person who lies creates a scarcity of information for themselves, and is unable to make good choices that benefit them and others.
(Of course, being honest doesn't always mean you'll arrive at truth, and it's possibly to tell a serendipitous lie, but more often than not, honesty will yield far more useful results than dishonesty.)
So you see, the strength of this argument lies in the utility of being honest. Sure being honest is the respectful thing to do, but more importantly it is the useful thing to do. When you are honest you provide yourself and others with information that will help you make beneficial decisions. The more you lie, the less you know, and the more you'll find yourself in stressful, compromising positions.
And it's that simple. That's pretty much all there is to the argument. Of course I'm not advocating this as an absolute rule. I'm sure there are instances where the usefulness of being honest can be superseded by a different reason, or where the usefulness of being honest can prove detrimental; but those are the exceptions, and they will always be in the small minority.
April 17, 2010
An Apology To Everyone
Thank Niepce for pictures.
I was clicking through photos of myself over the past few years 18 minutes ago and I realized a couple things:
1) Man I've been a happy kid. For all the moments spent in rumination and despair and confusion and anger, there's so many pictures to remind me of the fun that washed it all away, that despite all those negative feelings I could still have the time of my life.
2) Photos of myself used to be a lot more common. Over the past few years there haven't been too many, and the ones there has been there's been a noticeable decline in the amount of people sharing the frame.
I don't feel good about those points. It's not that I feel remorse for those pictures being taken; I feel remorse because what was captured in those pictures is being sacrificed for something else.
I wonder if it was always meant to be this way. No, I don't mean in any sort of grand supernatural scheme, rather if it could have been avoided. Could I have not cared about the truth so diligently and fiercely?
From what I can scrounge from my memory, this is probably the most accurate summation of how I felt (chiefly in the formative years) (though the driving me mad part didn't come till the current years). If I'm remembering correctly, there probably isn't much I could have done.
There's something that happens to you when you seek the truth, when you want to know why the world works the way it does. The first thing that happens is you become mad, really mad. From the moment you are born you are told one grand tale after the other--stories of heroes and unseen philanthropists and cute things. Time comes when you find out your beloved luminaries aren't who you thought they were, and you get upset. You've been tricked. You've been made a fool. Finding out about government cover ups and the clandestine agendas of multinational corporations ain't too different. You find out a country or a brand or a product or a store you were loyal to tricked you, you'd be mad all over again.
Second thing that happens is you selectively seek the same info. Your eyes have been opened and you want to know more. What else have you been lied to about? What starts as shock and disenfranchisement turns into vengeful wonderment turns into voracious info-hunting. It becomes regular, perhaps not as regular as you'd like, perhaps only as regular as your sanity can permit, but you've got your shovel and you're a diggin' machine.
Third thing that happens is dissemination. You've awakened. You've realized that you've been living in a world where you're constantly half-dreaming and half-awake, and now that you're starting to wake up from the dream you want to rouse the others too. This is where I get into trouble. You see, people like their sleep. Trying to wake them makes them grumpy. The dream is soothing and placating; wakefulness is jarring and grating. It takes strength to accept you've been dreaming--rather, placed into a dream--and bear the initial ugliness of wakefulness, something the dream does not teach, does not reinforce. The dream wants you to keep dreaming. You don't need it, but it needs you. Without you, the dream ends.
I cared so much about the truth that my failures trying to get people out of the dream built up like coral calcium deposits. I became hard. Other people just didn't matter as much to me anymore. I couldn't get past disagreements or their fixation of parts of the dream world. I became uninterested in them and turned to those who were awake, or had begun to awaken. Trouble was--and is--there wasn't too many of them out there. Hardly any, at least that I could see. So here I was/am, out more or less by myself, and around me I see all these other people together. Dreaming or no, they're still people, and I still want to be with them. I certainly don't want to make them grumpy.
It's difficult to walk that line though because, well it can't really be walked. There's no floating in between. You need to manage shifts in between the two, which is hard, because once your on the path of truth, how--or why--could you go back to lies and half-truths and one-sided news reports? I really don't want to have to choose between truth and companionship. I think it's terrible that I've even arrived at that choice. Maybe there's a way to have both. It's certainly worth a shot. I could definitely get more done with a few more hands and a lot more hugs.
I was clicking through photos of myself over the past few years 18 minutes ago and I realized a couple things:
1) Man I've been a happy kid. For all the moments spent in rumination and despair and confusion and anger, there's so many pictures to remind me of the fun that washed it all away, that despite all those negative feelings I could still have the time of my life.
2) Photos of myself used to be a lot more common. Over the past few years there haven't been too many, and the ones there has been there's been a noticeable decline in the amount of people sharing the frame.
I don't feel good about those points. It's not that I feel remorse for those pictures being taken; I feel remorse because what was captured in those pictures is being sacrificed for something else.
Stone is always the end product
There was a beginning. I'm not sure when or where it happened, but I know that there was one. At some point and some place or another, I started to care about the truth. In the nascent years it was about who stole my calculator and what the capital of Sri Lanka was. In the formative years it was about what my feelings really meant and if a pip of gossip was accurate. Now, I'm concerned with the truth behind food production, corporate/government collusion, and anything of meta scale.I wonder if it was always meant to be this way. No, I don't mean in any sort of grand supernatural scheme, rather if it could have been avoided. Could I have not cared about the truth so diligently and fiercely?
From what I can scrounge from my memory, this is probably the most accurate summation of how I felt (chiefly in the formative years) (though the driving me mad part didn't come till the current years). If I'm remembering correctly, there probably isn't much I could have done.
You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain; but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life--that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.
There's something that happens to you when you seek the truth, when you want to know why the world works the way it does. The first thing that happens is you become mad, really mad. From the moment you are born you are told one grand tale after the other--stories of heroes and unseen philanthropists and cute things. Time comes when you find out your beloved luminaries aren't who you thought they were, and you get upset. You've been tricked. You've been made a fool. Finding out about government cover ups and the clandestine agendas of multinational corporations ain't too different. You find out a country or a brand or a product or a store you were loyal to tricked you, you'd be mad all over again.
Second thing that happens is you selectively seek the same info. Your eyes have been opened and you want to know more. What else have you been lied to about? What starts as shock and disenfranchisement turns into vengeful wonderment turns into voracious info-hunting. It becomes regular, perhaps not as regular as you'd like, perhaps only as regular as your sanity can permit, but you've got your shovel and you're a diggin' machine.
Third thing that happens is dissemination. You've awakened. You've realized that you've been living in a world where you're constantly half-dreaming and half-awake, and now that you're starting to wake up from the dream you want to rouse the others too. This is where I get into trouble. You see, people like their sleep. Trying to wake them makes them grumpy. The dream is soothing and placating; wakefulness is jarring and grating. It takes strength to accept you've been dreaming--rather, placed into a dream--and bear the initial ugliness of wakefulness, something the dream does not teach, does not reinforce. The dream wants you to keep dreaming. You don't need it, but it needs you. Without you, the dream ends.
Stone hands petting a kitten hurts the kitten
So you're mulling around trying to get some work done and everyone's still in bed and they're not too keen on getting up. So what do you do? This is what I've been trying to figure out as of late. At heart, I'm a cooperative man. While the creativity of a single person can be magnificent and venerable, one cannot achieve what is possible with many. But before one can join forces with their sapient brethren there must be common grounds on which to build--the co-operating parties must agree on the facts. It is very unlikely that a dreamer and a non-dreamer will agree on the facts. Productive co-operation becomes a struggle, and eventually turns to an adversarial contest to prove who is right. It's not easy to make or keep friends when you argue about what's real, what's true. When you tell someone that they're wrong about something, most likely that person is going to be offended, because what kind of useless fool are they if their perceptive and cognitive capabilities are so inadequate that they can't discern the truth? And again, that's what the dream wants; it's built into the dream. Dreamers are taught to disregard and even vilify any information that contradicts the information put forth by the dream. It keeps the dream safe and intact. If people started questioning the dream, it would be in real trouble.I cared so much about the truth that my failures trying to get people out of the dream built up like coral calcium deposits. I became hard. Other people just didn't matter as much to me anymore. I couldn't get past disagreements or their fixation of parts of the dream world. I became uninterested in them and turned to those who were awake, or had begun to awaken. Trouble was--and is--there wasn't too many of them out there. Hardly any, at least that I could see. So here I was/am, out more or less by myself, and around me I see all these other people together. Dreaming or no, they're still people, and I still want to be with them. I certainly don't want to make them grumpy.
It's difficult to walk that line though because, well it can't really be walked. There's no floating in between. You need to manage shifts in between the two, which is hard, because once your on the path of truth, how--or why--could you go back to lies and half-truths and one-sided news reports? I really don't want to have to choose between truth and companionship. I think it's terrible that I've even arrived at that choice. Maybe there's a way to have both. It's certainly worth a shot. I could definitely get more done with a few more hands and a lot more hugs.
December 18, 2009
Democracy's Rust (Pt. 1)
VICIOUS CIRCLE
Though the pipes held, it looked like they ought to collapse at any moment. Its flimsy, prioritized structure was certainly suspect, yet it defiantly kept its integrity. A few months passed and it became obvious that whatever was done was not built to last. While certain areas of your plumbing network were attentively and adequately mended, there were others that looked like they were sealed with silly putty. Slow, dripping leaks appeared at first. They were a nuisance, but manageable. After a year they became full-blown fractures. The man that did the work did not understand that in order for a system to operate at maximum capacity, all of its components, and all of the connections between them, must be equally strong.
You had to wait three more years to have someone else try to fix the problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRIME MINISTER MONEY
During the party, an uninvited woman shows up at the door. She is wearing a business suit. She says she is a representative of a major music distributor. She noticed that many of your guests prefer to listen to what some call "alternative" music. She obtained this information from an anonymous third party. While she respects the personal tastes of each individual, she feels that your guests would enjoy the party significantly more if the DJ played music from her label's artists. To prove her sincerity, she offers a stipend to all guests that covers their liquor and food costs. She also promises the guests a meet-and-greet with one of her label's artists at a later date. While you object, your guests welcome the offer; they cannot turn down free booze. A contract is signed by the guests--for bookkeeping purposes, attests the label representative.
Once the contract is signed, the label representative informs you of new legislation that was passed earlier in the week. The legislation makes it illegal for any one person to share music in anyway with one or more parties, unless a free-use license is purchased. She says if at least seventy percent of the music shared is by one label's artists, then only one license is required; any less, and multiple licenses would be required. The label representative said she could collect the license fee on behalf of her label, since the guests had agreed to play music from her label's artists. If your guests refused to pay the fee, they would be sued. The contract they signed would be used as evidence. They agreed to pay. The cost of one 24-hour license was more than the stipend she provided to your guests.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PARALLAX
[Two salesmen are standing at the entrance to Graedy's (TM), sweet-talking shoppers as they pass by. Graedy's (TM) is hosting a nation-wide contest between two competing brands of facial cleanser. The best-selling brand will be sold permanently in all Graedy's (TM) stores. There have been weeks of advertisements--posters, TV commercials, radio commercials, newspaper ads, magazine ads. Today is "voting day". All of the fervor has created a public frenzy. Millions of shoppers flood the stores to buy their favourite facial cleanser in hopes that it will become a mainstay in Graedy's (TM) stores. Two undecided bystanders are listening to wooing salesmen.]
Salesman 2: That's right, shoppers, this is the moment you've been waiting for. This is your chance to pick your favourite facial cleanser in the entire nation!
Salesman 1: And I can guarantee that your favourite is going to be Slim Jack's (TM) Facial Cleanser! Slim Jack's hydropholiating action dissolves any unwanted facial oils, leaving your skin soft and radiant!
Salesman 2: Not to mention dissolving any wanted facial hair. Folks, if you value your eyebrows like the Good Lord says you should, you will stay leagues away from Slim Jack's (TM). No folks, you want Jack Slim's (TM) Facial Scrub, complete with superlative, micro-boreating beads that unclog pores and strengthen facial hair. Yes! That moustache will be as thick as an Arabian carpet!
Salesman 1: That is if you live long enough to see it. Friends, what my competitor hasn't told you is that those micro-boreating beads are toxic. That's right, folks, Jack Slim's (TM) is far from fair dinkum. Jack Slim's (TM) toxic beads will make you terribly ill, and perhaps even kill you if your skin is exposed to the beads for too long. Slim Jack's (TM), meanwhile, is 100% organic and 100% non-toxic. In fact, it is so delicate on your skin that you can use it on your entire body!
Salesman 2: And use half a bottle in the process? Folks, is that what you call bang for your buck? Jack Slim's (TM) is hyper-concentrated. It's so potent in fact, that you can use it to wash your dishes and scrub the floor! And if you run out in less than four year's time, we'll send you a replacement bottle free of charge!
[The salesmen carry on in the background.]
Bystander 1: Why does it feel like no matter which one I choose, it won't be any better than the other one?
Bystander 2: I reckon you're right on the nose about that, sonny. Why, them there brands are owned by the same gall darn company, don't ya know?
-------------------------------------------------------------
POLICY OF INADEQUACY
"Well let's hear it, little darling." The old man smiled at his granddaughter's gleeful excitement.
"Okay. How many politicians does it take to put out a fire?"
The old man's face turned solemn. His granddaughter's jocularity was pierced with suddenly sullen eyes that cast a shadow over his grave smile. He was reminded of the fire that burned--and still burned--everything he lost, everyone... He was reminded of the cruelty of life and the certainty of its curse--to give everything to your children and grandchildren, and have them beaten and broken by even worse tribulations than he had to endure; to be invisible when he needed help, for society's supposed protectors to be complicit in his omission. It wasn't fair.
The old man felt a tide rising in him. It brought pain; it brought anger. The pain reminded him of the competitions he and his childhood friends had: to see who could keep their hand on a hot plate the longest. Soon the pain overwhelmed him, as did his anger. His head felt warm, like it was in a box fed with hot water, the current constantly jogging his concentration. He opened his eyes and saw his granddaughter. He wanted to keep his feelings from her, but knew she would soon begin to feel them herself. At least, he would not be livid--he could not; the pain was numbing.
"My sweet angel, no matter how many politicians were involved, by the time they decided the party leaders, appointed members of senate, drafted and passed a budget, drafted and passed the requisite bills, and had an election, not only would the fire have razed everything in its path, but even the embers would have fizzled out. Firefighters should deal with fires, not politicians. Let us not speak anymore on the matter."
December 9, 2009
An Anti-Consumerist's Parable
This is going to be about Christmas, and it is going to be about everything. (Oh subtext, you are the bed of Jasmine Rice to my Mango Chutney Lamb with Saffron Asparagus.)
So Christmas. It's about gifts. Well actually, it isn't really about gifts, but with the amount of time that goes into searching for gifts, buying gifts, preparing gifts for opening (so that there is the essential "element of surprise" (more on this later)), throwing ceremonial rituals for opening gifts, and utilizing the function of gifts that anyone unfamiliar with Christmas could not help but think the whole thing was about buying and receiving gifts. We who are acclimatized to Christmas know that it is not about gifts, but it is certainly the focal point. If that claim is not apparent to you, go to your local mall, turn on the TV, or just cruise the internet. Why are gifts the focal point of Christmas?!? Well, apart from the manufacturers of anything ever being able to use Christmas as a gigantic cash grab, do we really understand the relevance of giving shit to people? And I ain't talking about little Baby Jesus and Three Wise Men.
Amount spent on gifts/Disposable income = Generosity
That is, your generosity is a percentage of your disposable income. The factor will be different for each person you gift, as well as for your cumulative gift expenditures.
We are not told why generosity (i.e., giving/buying gifts) is good. It just is (like many things in life, because it's just easier to understand something as is than trying to explain why it is the way it is. Now now, don't you start thinking about that. Here, have a box of chocolates.). There is no absolute power or consensus that can tell us why giving gifts is good because the goodness of the giving is determined by the receiver of the gift(s); only the receiver explain why the gift was good or not. Giving my grandma a bottle of rye would be far less good than giving it to my alcoholic coworker (actually, that probably wouldn't be very good either). Giving my girlfriend a bag of feces would be devoid of good of any kind (unless of course she was into that (which she isn't)). That's right! Giving things isn't always good!
So why is giving things good at Christmas? And at Hanukkah? And on Mother's Day? And on Valentine's Day? More importantly, who is telling you that giving is good? Let me tell you: it certainly isn't people who are selfless. The people that tell you that giving is good WANT STUFF. They might want you to buy stuff from them, they might want you to buy stuff for them. They are selfish bastards! You are also a selfish bastard! Because you want them to give you stuff too! So you give in. So you see, it's good because everyone wins in the end. Hahaha, that was a good joke. Hahahahahaha.
Do you win when every year grandma gets you an ugly sweater that doesn't fit? Does little Timmy win when he gets some predictable toy/game with a bunch of tiny little plastic pieces and he sees fit that they would be perfect for getting lodged in his trachea? Do homeless people win when you give them the shit you don't want and you think you do a good deed because they would have been worse off without it? No, is the sad truth, just like popularity of So You Think You Can Dance. Some people do win, but most of the people that do really don't need to. You can't honestly answer "yes" to the question of whether you need any of the gifts you receive at Christmas. Try it. You can't. Unless you're homeless. Then you need warm clothes and food. And a bath. How is giving good when the person you're giving gifts to doesn't need them?
Point number the letter B: gifts make people happy. There is an entire play, complete with set, that is manifested to provide the illusion that giving gifts not only makes the end user happy, but you as well. What a great world of lies we live in :D (Yes I AM going to be this sardonic THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.) (I wrote a little something about happiness a while ago. Read that if you haven't.) In short: happiness cannot be achieved by having short blips of excitement; it cannot be achieved by performing an obligatory act. (And don't even try to tell me giving gifts at Christmas time isn't obligatory. Not giving gifts is such a large social infraction that it will change how others perceive and define you for the worse. You want to avoid this and other social infractions, yes? Then it is an obligation.) Giving gifts have the potential of producing JOY, not happiness. A lot of companies and advertisers get this right, and I thank them for that.
Unfortunately, this joy is short lived. A number of reasons come to mind. The mysterious presentation of gifts often produces a surprised reaction. People love solving mysteries. It's exciting. However, the mystery of "What's in that DVD-case sized wrapped object?" is easily solved, and the excitement you had dissipates soon afterward. (Yes, I realize I'm flipping between gift giver and receiver perspectives. Both are important, of course. Don't worry, I'm not trying to confuse you.) Whatever the gift is, chances are it is not very complex and is easily consumable. This may or may not provide additional excitement depending on the end user's age, maturity level, propensity toward material objects, the object's usefulness, and the end user's subjective valuation of the object; but even the most seemingly exciting things get familiar quickly, even if they are quite useful. Thus, the joy ends.
The people who invented Christmas did a sublime job of creating an atmosphere of positivity and anticipation--of making the focal point of Christmas (which isn't really what Christmas is about) seem greater than it really is. There is no build up to Valentine's Day; there is no advent calendar for Thanksgiving; there is no shopping SEASON (shopping SEASON! Fuck is that crazy.) for Easter; but the capitulation of all of these holidays results in getting stuff. Sure, Christmas gifts often cost a lot more, but does that make them greater than an abundance of delicious chocolate or bourbon-basted ham or turkey? (Fuck is bourbon-basted ham good.) It might buy those gifts a slightly longer period of excitement and novelty, but again, it just doesn't last. (I will say positive things eventually. I promise! (I cannot promise I will curb my usage of parenthetical statements.))
The Christmas Spirit, however, seems to have enduring qualities. People love the feeling of generosity, of sharing with others. They like that others are kind to each other. They are grateful that they receive help when in need. These things happen all of the time; but there is no year-long play to make people believe that those things happen more often than they do, or that they are more meaningful and significant than they are. But, it is a good thing that they endure, even if their root cause is insincere and contrived. They endure because they are INTANGIBLE. Intangible things (memories, emotions, sense data) are not as disposable as Lee Carvello's Putting Challenge. Whether you intend it or not, your brain is good at remembering a lot of things, things you may never remember again! Things that last a long time (as in your entire life) provide more utility than things that last a short time. This usually means that they have more worth. Intangible things also exist because of you. They could not exist if you did not exist. Things that exist because of you are a gajillion-billion-Brewster's-millions times better than things that don't. So why not try to get more things like that? Rather, create more intangible things. Why focus on giving and receiving things that are relatively meaningless compared to things that persist and will be with you (probably) your whole life?
I strive for the intangible, for great memories. To me it is far more meaningful. It likely is for you, too. Looking back on your life, what are your greatest achievements? Your greatest failures? What has filled you with euphoria? With bottomless sorrow? Were any material objects the focal point of any of these events?
I don't buy gifts at Christmas anymore. I haven't for a couple of years now. If you've been following along, the reasons why I refrain should seem apparent--that and I often don't have a lot of disposable income. If I feel inclined to share something with someone I often burn them a CD, because I like sharing music--music, while created from physical objects, transforms into something intangible, and becomes thus for the listener. (So many of my memories of Australia are tied to music, enough for me to have a small library of memories and emotions on a small shelf, waiting to be recalled when I choose.) I was hoping to have a pre-Christmas dance party. It would have been my gift to everyone, just like the party I held in August. The goal of hosting such an event isn't to share anything material: it is to share an experience with others, something they will remember, something they will want to experience again. It is more important to me to be a part of someone's memories, to give them memories. I can think of no greater gift to give.
So Christmas. It's about gifts. Well actually, it isn't really about gifts, but with the amount of time that goes into searching for gifts, buying gifts, preparing gifts for opening (so that there is the essential "element of surprise" (more on this later)), throwing ceremonial rituals for opening gifts, and utilizing the function of gifts that anyone unfamiliar with Christmas could not help but think the whole thing was about buying and receiving gifts. We who are acclimatized to Christmas know that it is not about gifts, but it is certainly the focal point. If that claim is not apparent to you, go to your local mall, turn on the TV, or just cruise the internet. Why are gifts the focal point of Christmas?!? Well, apart from the manufacturers of anything ever being able to use Christmas as a gigantic cash grab, do we really understand the relevance of giving shit to people? And I ain't talking about little Baby Jesus and Three Wise Men.
Baby Jesus and Three Wise Men
Baby Jesus taught us that rich nobles ought to pay tribute to those of impermeable holiness. Thus, by asking for gifts at Christmas it means you are a holy motherfucker, and your aunts and uncles are incredibly wise. Actually, the generosity is supposed to be the moral of the story. (Please don't make me feel alone in my inability to comprehend that message. What kind of wise man would give a baby gold? GOLD! What the crap is a baby going to do with gold? It would be WAY too heavy for it to even lift, let alone carry it to the local merchant to buy an immaculate donkey.) Today, generosity is considered a virtue, especially during the Christmas season. There is a simple formula for calculating generosity. It is as follows:Amount spent on gifts/Disposable income = Generosity
That is, your generosity is a percentage of your disposable income. The factor will be different for each person you gift, as well as for your cumulative gift expenditures.
We are not told why generosity (i.e., giving/buying gifts) is good. It just is (like many things in life, because it's just easier to understand something as is than trying to explain why it is the way it is. Now now, don't you start thinking about that. Here, have a box of chocolates.). There is no absolute power or consensus that can tell us why giving gifts is good because the goodness of the giving is determined by the receiver of the gift(s); only the receiver explain why the gift was good or not. Giving my grandma a bottle of rye would be far less good than giving it to my alcoholic coworker (actually, that probably wouldn't be very good either). Giving my girlfriend a bag of feces would be devoid of good of any kind (unless of course she was into that (which she isn't)). That's right! Giving things isn't always good!
So why is giving things good at Christmas? And at Hanukkah? And on Mother's Day? And on Valentine's Day? More importantly, who is telling you that giving is good? Let me tell you: it certainly isn't people who are selfless. The people that tell you that giving is good WANT STUFF. They might want you to buy stuff from them, they might want you to buy stuff for them. They are selfish bastards! You are also a selfish bastard! Because you want them to give you stuff too! So you give in. So you see, it's good because everyone wins in the end. Hahaha, that was a good joke. Hahahahahaha.
Do you win when every year grandma gets you an ugly sweater that doesn't fit? Does little Timmy win when he gets some predictable toy/game with a bunch of tiny little plastic pieces and he sees fit that they would be perfect for getting lodged in his trachea? Do homeless people win when you give them the shit you don't want and you think you do a good deed because they would have been worse off without it? No, is the sad truth, just like popularity of So You Think You Can Dance. Some people do win, but most of the people that do really don't need to. You can't honestly answer "yes" to the question of whether you need any of the gifts you receive at Christmas. Try it. You can't. Unless you're homeless. Then you need warm clothes and food. And a bath. How is giving good when the person you're giving gifts to doesn't need them?
Point number the letter B: gifts make people happy. There is an entire play, complete with set, that is manifested to provide the illusion that giving gifts not only makes the end user happy, but you as well. What a great world of lies we live in :D (Yes I AM going to be this sardonic THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.) (I wrote a little something about happiness a while ago. Read that if you haven't.) In short: happiness cannot be achieved by having short blips of excitement; it cannot be achieved by performing an obligatory act. (And don't even try to tell me giving gifts at Christmas time isn't obligatory. Not giving gifts is such a large social infraction that it will change how others perceive and define you for the worse. You want to avoid this and other social infractions, yes? Then it is an obligation.) Giving gifts have the potential of producing JOY, not happiness. A lot of companies and advertisers get this right, and I thank them for that.
Unfortunately, this joy is short lived. A number of reasons come to mind. The mysterious presentation of gifts often produces a surprised reaction. People love solving mysteries. It's exciting. However, the mystery of "What's in that DVD-case sized wrapped object?" is easily solved, and the excitement you had dissipates soon afterward. (Yes, I realize I'm flipping between gift giver and receiver perspectives. Both are important, of course. Don't worry, I'm not trying to confuse you.) Whatever the gift is, chances are it is not very complex and is easily consumable. This may or may not provide additional excitement depending on the end user's age, maturity level, propensity toward material objects, the object's usefulness, and the end user's subjective valuation of the object; but even the most seemingly exciting things get familiar quickly, even if they are quite useful. Thus, the joy ends.
Things That Don't Exist
The people who invented Christmas did a sublime job of creating an atmosphere of positivity and anticipation--of making the focal point of Christmas (which isn't really what Christmas is about) seem greater than it really is. There is no build up to Valentine's Day; there is no advent calendar for Thanksgiving; there is no shopping SEASON (shopping SEASON! Fuck is that crazy.) for Easter; but the capitulation of all of these holidays results in getting stuff. Sure, Christmas gifts often cost a lot more, but does that make them greater than an abundance of delicious chocolate or bourbon-basted ham or turkey? (Fuck is bourbon-basted ham good.) It might buy those gifts a slightly longer period of excitement and novelty, but again, it just doesn't last. (I will say positive things eventually. I promise! (I cannot promise I will curb my usage of parenthetical statements.))
The Christmas Spirit, however, seems to have enduring qualities. People love the feeling of generosity, of sharing with others. They like that others are kind to each other. They are grateful that they receive help when in need. These things happen all of the time; but there is no year-long play to make people believe that those things happen more often than they do, or that they are more meaningful and significant than they are. But, it is a good thing that they endure, even if their root cause is insincere and contrived. They endure because they are INTANGIBLE. Intangible things (memories, emotions, sense data) are not as disposable as Lee Carvello's Putting Challenge. Whether you intend it or not, your brain is good at remembering a lot of things, things you may never remember again! Things that last a long time (as in your entire life) provide more utility than things that last a short time. This usually means that they have more worth. Intangible things also exist because of you. They could not exist if you did not exist. Things that exist because of you are a gajillion-billion-Brewster's-millions times better than things that don't. So why not try to get more things like that? Rather, create more intangible things. Why focus on giving and receiving things that are relatively meaningless compared to things that persist and will be with you (probably) your whole life?
I strive for the intangible, for great memories. To me it is far more meaningful. It likely is for you, too. Looking back on your life, what are your greatest achievements? Your greatest failures? What has filled you with euphoria? With bottomless sorrow? Were any material objects the focal point of any of these events?
I don't buy gifts at Christmas anymore. I haven't for a couple of years now. If you've been following along, the reasons why I refrain should seem apparent--that and I often don't have a lot of disposable income. If I feel inclined to share something with someone I often burn them a CD, because I like sharing music--music, while created from physical objects, transforms into something intangible, and becomes thus for the listener. (So many of my memories of Australia are tied to music, enough for me to have a small library of memories and emotions on a small shelf, waiting to be recalled when I choose.) I was hoping to have a pre-Christmas dance party. It would have been my gift to everyone, just like the party I held in August. The goal of hosting such an event isn't to share anything material: it is to share an experience with others, something they will remember, something they will want to experience again. It is more important to me to be a part of someone's memories, to give them memories. I can think of no greater gift to give.
November 12, 2009
Soldiers: Don't Wear A Poppy And You Can Go Home
Today, Remembrance Day (technically yesterday), I was sent home from work because I refused to wear a poppy. Remembrance Day--the day where we remember a multitude of murderers, who were in turn murdered themselves (to be fair, not all of them were murderers); and we also remember that this was all okay. In fact, it was so okay that Canada, along with many other countries, made a law that forced people to become murderers, without question. I'm glad I have your attention.
Before I invoke the eternal hate of everyone ever, let me state that I respect those that fought against the army of the man who thought genocide was a good idea--against their will, no less. By fighting that army, they fought that idea. But was it really a victory if the soldiers we pay tribute to fought only because they were forced to? How do we really know they were opposed to Hitler's ideas? Maybe some thought Hitler's ideas were better than our Prime Ministers' ideas. In fact, I know of an older man who was rather fond of Hitler's ideas, in particular, his system of capital punishment. If it were up to the soldiers, maybe they would have fought those ideas another way; maybe they would have supported them; maybe they would have tried to rationalize with the humans, and perhaps friends or relatives, they fought against.
So just what are we acknowledging on Remembrance Day? We acknowledge soldiers that have died in World Wars I and II, certainly; but we also acknowledge the causes of those soldiers deaths.
Remembrance Day is a solemn affair, but it is slightly glorified too--the 'they fought for our freedom' phrase is often and easily uttered; however, let me remind you that freedom is a tricky little thing, something that likely cannot be attained fully. We are all slaves to money. In order to live, we must work for money in order to purchase things that we need (food, water, shelter, etc.). In order to circumvent this system, one must have an immaculate comprehension and understanding of survival skills. Few people would go to these lengths to live in isolated nature. In regards to WWII, recall that Hitler was arbitrarily killing Jews, homosexuals, and perhaps a few other minorities. (Feel free to fill in the gaps.) So, assuming Hitler didn't have a problem with anyone else, Canadian soldiers only really fought for the freedom of some people, mainly a minority of the population. (Note: I really like minorities [which are majorities in other parts of the world]! I'm sorry history hasn't been the best for you!) But let's go back to this idea of humanity.
If conscription ever comes into effect in the country in which I live, I will leave. I will be glad never to return. How awful is it to force someone to do something against their will? That's what rape is--granted the scenario and people involved are a little different. The principle behind it is the same. When you refuse a person a choice, when you remove their autonomy, they become a slave. Slavery was outlawed a long time ago, just in case you didn't know. This I cannot stand for. I cannot stand for how the soldiers we remember were moulded so that they would not think, not question authority, only obey. I cannot stand that kind of treatment of anyone. How cruel is it to rob a person of their rationality? The very thing that separates them from all other animals?
Let's also not forget about the bamboozling immensity of the business of war; the hypocrisy of allowing men and women to kill other soldiers and civilians without repercussion while a person who kills someone for revenge (i.e., avenging the murder of a loved one) is considered a criminal; how the reasons for war are never the reasons the government/military tells the public; torture; and other deplorable consequences.
All of these things are tied to Remembrance Day. They are the reasons why those soldiers are dead; they are the reasons why they aren't celebrating their 40th or 50th wedding anniversary with their loved ones this year; the reason why they aren't teaching their grandkids how to make a toy car out of wood, or ride a horse. They are lives that could otherwise be filling with world with happiness instead of remorse. They are the reasons why I cannot wear a poppy.
September 30, 2009
The Shortcomings of Cell Phones
Yes, this an unabashed, negative dismantling of one of rich society's many chains; OR it is a list of constructive criticisms that point out where cell phones could improve; OR it is, in secret, a cryptic story of a bunny who likes ice cream.
1! Cell phones have batteries. Batteries die. A battery's charge gradually depletes so that you are forced to buy a new one. Batteries also make cell phones much larger than they could be without them. Batteries do not like to be smashed violently on the ground because then they cry. Their tears are very acidic and hurt you. Sometimes they explode. Sometimes they get hot--although this can be a good thing if it is close to your ball sack.
2! There are way too many cell phones, and by that I mean way too many DIFFERENT KINDS of cell phones. Why does there need to be SO MANY KINDS. There are only THREE kinds of video game consoles. There are only TWO kinds of televisions (LCD and Plasma. The rest I pretend don't exist.). Cell phones have proliferated enormously, kind of like dogs.
2.5! There are too many DIFFERENT KINDS of DOGS.
(Back to 2!) Flip phones, touch screens, antennas (I know it's actually antennae. I don't give a shit.), number pads, alphabet pads, slide out pads, cameras, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, music, videos, MSN, Facebook, web browsing, app stores: WHY DO I NEED ALL OF THIS SHIT! Cell phones have way too much SHIT that are not related to the function of a PHONE (which will be bullet point number 3! but I need to finish number 2! because too much back-and-forth is RIDICULOUS). If you go to buy a cell phone you're going to be confused before you even walk in the door. How do you know which cell phone is right for you? Do you want the slim and sleek one like you wish your girlfriend was? Do you want the practical, geeky looking one that should come with a pocket protector like your dad is? Do you want to take pictures with your phone? Do you want your phone to be able to give you a blowjob? Do you want your phone to be a weak, pathetic invalid that you will constantly abuse but keep around because you revel the fact that you can cheat on it all you want and it will STAY WITH YOU? Are you even getting a phone for its primary function: to TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE? I don't even have a point to wrap this up. Just reread the first sentence of this bullet point. Do it twice.
3! Cell phones increasingly provide functions that are not necessary to the purpose of owning a phone, which is, as recently stated, to TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE. These functions allow us to be pussies and not actually use the phone for actual, human-to-human verbal communication. WHAT IS WRONG WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION?!?!?! (I LIKE ALL CAPS!!) These functions serve as distractions from things, such as talking, driving, eating, sleeping, working, studying, playing video games (cell phone games are NOT REAL VIDEO GAMES), reading, being outside, putting icing on cupcakes, throwing watermelon rinds at seagulls, doing acid, putting a slice of lemon in your or someone else's eye, having a fisticuffs match on top of a shark underwater, drinking chemicals, and so forth. TALKING IS IMPORTANT.
4! TEXTING. Don't even get me started on this bullshit. Because I've already got MYSELF started and trying to get me started will be FUTILE because I'm already started. You're too late is the message I'm trying to get across here. Texting takes A LONG TIME TO DO. The time it takes you to send a text is equivalent of the time it would take me to send a telegram via morse code to an OLD MAN in ENGLAND and he would FLY ON A PLANE to where the telegram needs to be delivered and he would still have to walk EIGHTEEN BLOCKS with his old man CANE to deliver THE MESSAGE. It is a step down from typing on a computer keyboard. Text messages are SHORT. WAY too short. So short that everyone has to start maiming words and make themselves look unintelligent but it doesn't matter because everyone looks unintelligent so GUMDROPS. The messages themselves have to be abridged because there is not enough room. Petty arguments emerge because NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION WAS CONVEYED. Texting is a PUSSY WAY OF COMMUNICATING. If you phone someone they are FORCED TO TALK TO YOU. If you text them they can IGNORE YOU, just like you try to ignore that person you hooked up with at the bar and then peed on their bed because you were TOO DRUNK THAT NIGHT and you want to apologize and explain yourself but you can't because you are TRYING TO IGNORE THEM JUST LIKE THE DICK THAT KEEPS TEXTING YOU. Texting is also inadequate because it does not allow for important verbal cues that are crucial in trying to understand someone. These include timbre, tone, and pitch. Just think, a funny text could be WAY FUNNIER if you actually HEARD the person TELL IT. When I text I can't choose a FONT. The T9 crapsuck is REALLY BAD at putting my most used words FIRST. T9, I am WAY more frequently going to use "night" than "might". I am certainly going to use "am" more than "an". GRRR! Texting is not conducive to using PROPER GRAMMAR. Even though I advocate that the most important part of using language is to be able to apprehend what another person is saying--regardless of whether proper spelling and grammar is used--I still like words to be NEAT. I find that they are EASIER TO READ. It is what I am COMFORTABLE WITH.
5! Having only a cell phone forces you to carry it with you, even in your house/place of dwelling. Even on the loudest setting it is TOO QUIET when you are performing countless HEADSHOTS or listening to AGGRESSIVE ROCK MUSIC otherwise known as METAL. If you live in a place with THREE levels like me and you leave your phone upstairs and you go downstairs you will not hear your phone even if all you're doing is listening to the sound of AIR MOVING which sounds like NOTHING because it is practically INAUDIBLE.
6! Cell phones emit radiation which can potentially cause BRAIN CANCER. That one is SELF-EXPLANATORY.
7! Cell phones are easily LOST and/or BROKEN, often due to complications from bullet points 1! and 5!. Drunkenness can also be an issue. Mistaking a kangaroo's pouch for your purse is also a problem. Smashing it open because you think it's one of those cell phones that has candy in it happens too. Using it as a replacement rock for tabletop shuffleboard has been known to turn happy faces into frowny faces. Dropping it in any kind of liquid substance will certainly get it bricked. Cell phone manufacturers know that this is such a common occurrence that they put a DOT BEHIND THE BATTERY that will change colours when it gets sufficiently wet. WHY NOT JUST MAKE THE PHONE SO IT DOESN'T FUCK UP WHEN IT GETS WET? Well the answer, it's fairly obvious, is so that cell phone manufacturers can make more money. I don't even care if they fail to make cell phones indestructible (like Nalgene bottles). Just make the damn things WATERPROOF.
8! Cell phones are prone to BAD RECEPTION. Being in a highly populated area and not being able to use your phone for talking DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF OWNING A PHONE. Fortunately, this doesn't happen too often.
9! Cell phone audio quality SUCKS! To the point that I have to ask people to whom I'm talking to repeat themselves more than is necessary just to understand what they are saying. It's almost like trying to talk to the Charlie Brown teacher while she is GAGGED because she is partaking in S & M PLEASURE. And I say ALMOST because that was a HYPERBOLE. The ear piece receptacle is also very SMALL. It is difficult to HEAR the other person if you don't have the phone in the right POSITION.
And the bunny didn't get his ice cream.
The end.
1! Cell phones have batteries. Batteries die. A battery's charge gradually depletes so that you are forced to buy a new one. Batteries also make cell phones much larger than they could be without them. Batteries do not like to be smashed violently on the ground because then they cry. Their tears are very acidic and hurt you. Sometimes they explode. Sometimes they get hot--although this can be a good thing if it is close to your ball sack.
2! There are way too many cell phones, and by that I mean way too many DIFFERENT KINDS of cell phones. Why does there need to be SO MANY KINDS. There are only THREE kinds of video game consoles. There are only TWO kinds of televisions (LCD and Plasma. The rest I pretend don't exist.). Cell phones have proliferated enormously, kind of like dogs.
2.5! There are too many DIFFERENT KINDS of DOGS.
(Back to 2!) Flip phones, touch screens, antennas (I know it's actually antennae. I don't give a shit.), number pads, alphabet pads, slide out pads, cameras, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, music, videos, MSN, Facebook, web browsing, app stores: WHY DO I NEED ALL OF THIS SHIT! Cell phones have way too much SHIT that are not related to the function of a PHONE (which will be bullet point number 3! but I need to finish number 2! because too much back-and-forth is RIDICULOUS). If you go to buy a cell phone you're going to be confused before you even walk in the door. How do you know which cell phone is right for you? Do you want the slim and sleek one like you wish your girlfriend was? Do you want the practical, geeky looking one that should come with a pocket protector like your dad is? Do you want to take pictures with your phone? Do you want your phone to be able to give you a blowjob? Do you want your phone to be a weak, pathetic invalid that you will constantly abuse but keep around because you revel the fact that you can cheat on it all you want and it will STAY WITH YOU? Are you even getting a phone for its primary function: to TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE? I don't even have a point to wrap this up. Just reread the first sentence of this bullet point. Do it twice.
3! Cell phones increasingly provide functions that are not necessary to the purpose of owning a phone, which is, as recently stated, to TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE. These functions allow us to be pussies and not actually use the phone for actual, human-to-human verbal communication. WHAT IS WRONG WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION?!?!?! (I LIKE ALL CAPS!!) These functions serve as distractions from things, such as talking, driving, eating, sleeping, working, studying, playing video games (cell phone games are NOT REAL VIDEO GAMES), reading, being outside, putting icing on cupcakes, throwing watermelon rinds at seagulls, doing acid, putting a slice of lemon in your or someone else's eye, having a fisticuffs match on top of a shark underwater, drinking chemicals, and so forth. TALKING IS IMPORTANT.
4! TEXTING. Don't even get me started on this bullshit. Because I've already got MYSELF started and trying to get me started will be FUTILE because I'm already started. You're too late is the message I'm trying to get across here. Texting takes A LONG TIME TO DO. The time it takes you to send a text is equivalent of the time it would take me to send a telegram via morse code to an OLD MAN in ENGLAND and he would FLY ON A PLANE to where the telegram needs to be delivered and he would still have to walk EIGHTEEN BLOCKS with his old man CANE to deliver THE MESSAGE. It is a step down from typing on a computer keyboard. Text messages are SHORT. WAY too short. So short that everyone has to start maiming words and make themselves look unintelligent but it doesn't matter because everyone looks unintelligent so GUMDROPS. The messages themselves have to be abridged because there is not enough room. Petty arguments emerge because NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION WAS CONVEYED. Texting is a PUSSY WAY OF COMMUNICATING. If you phone someone they are FORCED TO TALK TO YOU. If you text them they can IGNORE YOU, just like you try to ignore that person you hooked up with at the bar and then peed on their bed because you were TOO DRUNK THAT NIGHT and you want to apologize and explain yourself but you can't because you are TRYING TO IGNORE THEM JUST LIKE THE DICK THAT KEEPS TEXTING YOU. Texting is also inadequate because it does not allow for important verbal cues that are crucial in trying to understand someone. These include timbre, tone, and pitch. Just think, a funny text could be WAY FUNNIER if you actually HEARD the person TELL IT. When I text I can't choose a FONT. The T9 crapsuck is REALLY BAD at putting my most used words FIRST. T9, I am WAY more frequently going to use "night" than "might". I am certainly going to use "am" more than "an". GRRR! Texting is not conducive to using PROPER GRAMMAR. Even though I advocate that the most important part of using language is to be able to apprehend what another person is saying--regardless of whether proper spelling and grammar is used--I still like words to be NEAT. I find that they are EASIER TO READ. It is what I am COMFORTABLE WITH.
5! Having only a cell phone forces you to carry it with you, even in your house/place of dwelling. Even on the loudest setting it is TOO QUIET when you are performing countless HEADSHOTS or listening to AGGRESSIVE ROCK MUSIC otherwise known as METAL. If you live in a place with THREE levels like me and you leave your phone upstairs and you go downstairs you will not hear your phone even if all you're doing is listening to the sound of AIR MOVING which sounds like NOTHING because it is practically INAUDIBLE.
6! Cell phones emit radiation which can potentially cause BRAIN CANCER. That one is SELF-EXPLANATORY.
7! Cell phones are easily LOST and/or BROKEN, often due to complications from bullet points 1! and 5!. Drunkenness can also be an issue. Mistaking a kangaroo's pouch for your purse is also a problem. Smashing it open because you think it's one of those cell phones that has candy in it happens too. Using it as a replacement rock for tabletop shuffleboard has been known to turn happy faces into frowny faces. Dropping it in any kind of liquid substance will certainly get it bricked. Cell phone manufacturers know that this is such a common occurrence that they put a DOT BEHIND THE BATTERY that will change colours when it gets sufficiently wet. WHY NOT JUST MAKE THE PHONE SO IT DOESN'T FUCK UP WHEN IT GETS WET? Well the answer, it's fairly obvious, is so that cell phone manufacturers can make more money. I don't even care if they fail to make cell phones indestructible (like Nalgene bottles). Just make the damn things WATERPROOF.
8! Cell phones are prone to BAD RECEPTION. Being in a highly populated area and not being able to use your phone for talking DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF OWNING A PHONE. Fortunately, this doesn't happen too often.
9! Cell phone audio quality SUCKS! To the point that I have to ask people to whom I'm talking to repeat themselves more than is necessary just to understand what they are saying. It's almost like trying to talk to the Charlie Brown teacher while she is GAGGED because she is partaking in S & M PLEASURE. And I say ALMOST because that was a HYPERBOLE. The ear piece receptacle is also very SMALL. It is difficult to HEAR the other person if you don't have the phone in the right POSITION.
And the bunny didn't get his ice cream.
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
