All in all I'm happy with who I am, but critical that other people often act so superficial. Then I notice that I put on these personas and don't bring up topics that I find important either. My excuse - that I am happy to accept for now - is that I want to learn more about them so I purposefully put on a personality they will be comfortable around in order to hear about their lives. And it's true. It is something that I love to do. No matter how much another's lifestyle is something I would never think of being like myself, I want to know about it so I can understand it. Still, I think that at some point in my life, I need to put forth portions of my personality that I believe to be important and ought to be shared. I need to encourage others to do the same about the things they find most important in life. I want people to talk about personal matters openly. I want people to talk about things that are vastly important in our lives. I want it to be a conversation, whether these things are global or introspection, whether they are vague or specific. I wish desperately that people would talk about the things that matter to them, not avoid them. Why do we do that? It's an awful habit and total nonsense.
One of the things I dislike the most about myself is that I never have anything to contribute. I never have anything meaningful to say. I never start a conversation or say anything new or interesting. I repeat and I agree. It makes for a good way to be accepted and get others to show their colors, but I seem to be deficient in any ability to do anything interesting myself. Sometimes in writing I can say worthwhile things. These ideas are my own and (I think) significantly independent from external sources. I've discovered I can do at least this much and I'm doing what I can to encourage it, but in conversation I am mute when it comes to originality. I can, at most, bring ideas from other sources I have heard, but I, myself, am wholly a soulless puppet in place for a thinking being. Its pathetic and I hate it about myself. I'm excellent at understanding and clarifying other people's thoughts when they have difficulty explaining it themselves. I just can't do anything of my own. Its a poison I've been born with and I want to wipe it out. But how? How do you learn to think of meaningful things to say?
-----
This topic has been twisted in many directions now, but in my mind they are all connected in a tangle. I don't think this makes for a well written post, but I think it's all things I should try to put into words. I shall split it up a bit to make it more coherent, but I can't seem to portion it off quite appropriately in my own mind. Part I | Part II | Part III
09 November 2011
What People Think of Me (part II of Friends and Strangers)
My changing persona makes it very easy for me to get along with all kinds of people and swim in all kinds of situations. Its a talent, a skill, and its something I consider myself good at. At the same time I am pretty aware that there are whole areas that other people are critical of that I am not even aware of. When people talk about not liking another person because they are annoying or the like, its often that can't tell at all what they find unlikable. I also know that there are many things I do and act like that are extremely awkward and strange for other people. I'm not sure what specifically, just that its part of who I am and how I act. I'm often hard to understand for others, at least I think so.
So often I wish I knew what other people think of me. All the negative traits they would never mention to my face. I want so much to listen in to the talk behind my back about me. I wouldn't be offended. A little scared and ashamed maybe. A little amused and a little sad maybe. But most of all I would be interested and try to figure out why and what gives that impression. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I often think I am disliked by most people who know me as acquaintances. I don't mind. It doesn't concern me as long as they find me tolerable and maybe notice that I lead a very different lifestyle.
Oh, I'm terribly embarrassed that I've never seen American Idol, the Super Bowl or know any actors. (Except Johnny Depp and Orlando Blume, but those only by repeated conversation, I don't follow them) I try to conceal how ignorant I am about basic culture and how innocent I am when it comes to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I try to hide that I'm an academic unless they are too. I don't want them to clam up because I am too different, but I'm also ashamed while simultaneously feeling superior for not wasting my time.
-----
This topic has been twisted in many directions now, but in my mind they are all connected in a tangle. I don't think this makes for a well written post, but I think it's all things I should try to put into words. I shall split it up a bit to make it more coherent, but I can't seem to portion it off quite appropriately in my own mind. Part I | Part II | Part III
So often I wish I knew what other people think of me. All the negative traits they would never mention to my face. I want so much to listen in to the talk behind my back about me. I wouldn't be offended. A little scared and ashamed maybe. A little amused and a little sad maybe. But most of all I would be interested and try to figure out why and what gives that impression. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I often think I am disliked by most people who know me as acquaintances. I don't mind. It doesn't concern me as long as they find me tolerable and maybe notice that I lead a very different lifestyle.
Oh, I'm terribly embarrassed that I've never seen American Idol, the Super Bowl or know any actors. (Except Johnny Depp and Orlando Blume, but those only by repeated conversation, I don't follow them) I try to conceal how ignorant I am about basic culture and how innocent I am when it comes to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I try to hide that I'm an academic unless they are too. I don't want them to clam up because I am too different, but I'm also ashamed while simultaneously feeling superior for not wasting my time.
-----
This topic has been twisted in many directions now, but in my mind they are all connected in a tangle. I don't think this makes for a well written post, but I think it's all things I should try to put into words. I shall split it up a bit to make it more coherent, but I can't seem to portion it off quite appropriately in my own mind. Part I | Part II | Part III
Friends and Strangers
When I am around friends, I think about what I say. I make sure I say things that won't offend them or make them think I'm a bad person. It depends on the friend, some people I make really biting jokes and other friends I make really immature silly jokes.
When I am around strangers I think about appearing consistent. Sometimes I feel like being competitive so I make challenges and am sarcastic. Sometimes I feel like being sweet and so I try and tell them interesting trivia and help them as much as possible. Sometime I play the aloof hostess and other times the savvy kid. With strangers I exaggerate and take on a colored persona. With friends I have different personas, but they aren't exaggerated.
Just being around friends affects me. I don't change myself when around them, I just show a different side of me. At least, that's what I'm telling myself right now. I don't actually know. Some people are very consistent and stay relatively similar without depending on who they are around. I really don't. Around adults I am serious and inquisitive. Around children I am adventurous and excited. Around my peers I can be very sarcastic and laid back, or I can be always laughing and serene. Around guys I become competitive and flaunt my boyishness. When I am alone I am quiet, patient, and relaxed. The happiest I've been is when I get the opportunity to be serious, thoughtful and intense, but there are very few people I can be like that around.
Sometimes I wonder if I should try and mix these personalities. I wonder if I should try to bring the other sides of me into the other ways I act around people.
I never do.
It's too natural for me to act certain ways around certain people. I know I chameleon, but only in retrospect. In the moment I am being me, and my mind is completely in synchronization with my adorned attitude.
Which one is the real me? Then one I never show people? The one that I act around my closest friends? The personality I enjoy the most? Each of these disappear when the people I am around disappear. Who am I? Should I try to combine these sides of myself? Or perhaps explore them and stretch them further? Is it more freedom to be all these sides or more freedom to be a single one no matter the situation? And is more freedom necessarily better?
-----
This topic has been twisted in many directions now, but in my mind they are all connected in a tangle. I don't think this makes for a well written post, but I think it's all things I should try to put into words. I shall split it up a bit to make it more coherent, but I can't seem to portion it off quite appropriately in my own mind. Part I | Part II | Part III
When I am around strangers I think about appearing consistent. Sometimes I feel like being competitive so I make challenges and am sarcastic. Sometimes I feel like being sweet and so I try and tell them interesting trivia and help them as much as possible. Sometime I play the aloof hostess and other times the savvy kid. With strangers I exaggerate and take on a colored persona. With friends I have different personas, but they aren't exaggerated.
Just being around friends affects me. I don't change myself when around them, I just show a different side of me. At least, that's what I'm telling myself right now. I don't actually know. Some people are very consistent and stay relatively similar without depending on who they are around. I really don't. Around adults I am serious and inquisitive. Around children I am adventurous and excited. Around my peers I can be very sarcastic and laid back, or I can be always laughing and serene. Around guys I become competitive and flaunt my boyishness. When I am alone I am quiet, patient, and relaxed. The happiest I've been is when I get the opportunity to be serious, thoughtful and intense, but there are very few people I can be like that around.
Sometimes I wonder if I should try and mix these personalities. I wonder if I should try to bring the other sides of me into the other ways I act around people.
I never do.
It's too natural for me to act certain ways around certain people. I know I chameleon, but only in retrospect. In the moment I am being me, and my mind is completely in synchronization with my adorned attitude.
Which one is the real me? Then one I never show people? The one that I act around my closest friends? The personality I enjoy the most? Each of these disappear when the people I am around disappear. Who am I? Should I try to combine these sides of myself? Or perhaps explore them and stretch them further? Is it more freedom to be all these sides or more freedom to be a single one no matter the situation? And is more freedom necessarily better?
-----
This topic has been twisted in many directions now, but in my mind they are all connected in a tangle. I don't think this makes for a well written post, but I think it's all things I should try to put into words. I shall split it up a bit to make it more coherent, but I can't seem to portion it off quite appropriately in my own mind. Part I | Part II | Part III
08 November 2011
God and Logic
While many scientists and thinkers have become staunch atheists, it is a mistake, as the author of "Confessions of a Philosopher" points out that Kant points out.
Rather, they should be staunch agnostics. The truth is, we don't know everything, therefore we can't claim that we can explain everything. In fact, there are many many things we know we cannot explain. Random chance we cannot predict. Nor do we know the unknown. These areas have all the potential for forces that are beyond our ever comprehending. There are some things that may not be capable of being known or recovered, even if humans were superhuman. I'm talking about things like the information that disappears into a black hole, or the path an electron took. These things we can never explain or know and that is exactly what magic or god is sometimes defined as, when its not being claimed as something greater. We can't prove there is magic or god in these things, but we can't know the opposite either, therefore we should never claim we know either way if we truly want to be logical and scientific.
Logic and science and truth are defined and founded on what we can prove or predict reliably. So its a fallacy to argue that which we cannot know or explain does not exist. Its legitimate to say its unlikely, but silly to say we believe everything can be explained. We have no evidence that is so, and an equal amount of evidence that it is not so.
Admittedly, its hard to accept that there is the possibility of magic when these disciplines strive to dispel all incomprehension, but its not so difficult. Many many things are effected or driven by chance, and really, that's all we are acknowledging. For all purposes it is not conducive to assume there are unknowns being manipulated by an intelligent force, or that there are unknowable unknowns (and any attempt at insight is useless). However, it is also a problem if we do not acknowledge what is true and what our limits are. To close our minds to anything is against the nature of seeking truth, even if we are closing our minds against what is silly, impossible, or just plain inconvenient.
I am not suggesting that logicians become religious or occult. I am not suggesting anything related to responses to believers in specific deities or myths. I am only suggesting that they stop being reactionary and dismissing all unknown forces as fantasy or illusion. Instead evaluate them on their likelihood and evidence or repercussions. They will likely arrive at essentially the same conclusion, but its important to arrive at the conclusion for the right reasons and to explain them to others as such. Its a small way to better those around you, and equally importantly, to better yourself.
The reverse is true of religious persons - they should acknowledge what has been proven or evidenced by science and learn more about their god or magic in this way. What ways it does not operate in does not mean that it operates any less greatly. In fact, knowing what god or magic is not doing means you are closer to discovering what beauty it is engaged in. Just because it has become that much harder to comprehend does not mean it is any less grand. In fact I would argue it makes it more grand, if it does exist. Trying to prove they exist is also likely not a good way to appreciate them. Trying too hard to prove them is far more damaging than giving up proving them. You limit your own ability to see the much finer possibilities, and you lose sight of the beauty to be discovered when you stop in one definition and stick to it. You don't get the chance to experience a progression of grandeur as you discover all the ways such things could exist and operate around us.
One of my favorite quotes runs thus:
Rather, they should be staunch agnostics. The truth is, we don't know everything, therefore we can't claim that we can explain everything. In fact, there are many many things we know we cannot explain. Random chance we cannot predict. Nor do we know the unknown. These areas have all the potential for forces that are beyond our ever comprehending. There are some things that may not be capable of being known or recovered, even if humans were superhuman. I'm talking about things like the information that disappears into a black hole, or the path an electron took. These things we can never explain or know and that is exactly what magic or god is sometimes defined as, when its not being claimed as something greater. We can't prove there is magic or god in these things, but we can't know the opposite either, therefore we should never claim we know either way if we truly want to be logical and scientific.
Logic and science and truth are defined and founded on what we can prove or predict reliably. So its a fallacy to argue that which we cannot know or explain does not exist. Its legitimate to say its unlikely, but silly to say we believe everything can be explained. We have no evidence that is so, and an equal amount of evidence that it is not so.
Admittedly, its hard to accept that there is the possibility of magic when these disciplines strive to dispel all incomprehension, but its not so difficult. Many many things are effected or driven by chance, and really, that's all we are acknowledging. For all purposes it is not conducive to assume there are unknowns being manipulated by an intelligent force, or that there are unknowable unknowns (and any attempt at insight is useless). However, it is also a problem if we do not acknowledge what is true and what our limits are. To close our minds to anything is against the nature of seeking truth, even if we are closing our minds against what is silly, impossible, or just plain inconvenient.
I am not suggesting that logicians become religious or occult. I am not suggesting anything related to responses to believers in specific deities or myths. I am only suggesting that they stop being reactionary and dismissing all unknown forces as fantasy or illusion. Instead evaluate them on their likelihood and evidence or repercussions. They will likely arrive at essentially the same conclusion, but its important to arrive at the conclusion for the right reasons and to explain them to others as such. Its a small way to better those around you, and equally importantly, to better yourself.
The reverse is true of religious persons - they should acknowledge what has been proven or evidenced by science and learn more about their god or magic in this way. What ways it does not operate in does not mean that it operates any less greatly. In fact, knowing what god or magic is not doing means you are closer to discovering what beauty it is engaged in. Just because it has become that much harder to comprehend does not mean it is any less grand. In fact I would argue it makes it more grand, if it does exist. Trying to prove they exist is also likely not a good way to appreciate them. Trying too hard to prove them is far more damaging than giving up proving them. You limit your own ability to see the much finer possibilities, and you lose sight of the beauty to be discovered when you stop in one definition and stick to it. You don't get the chance to experience a progression of grandeur as you discover all the ways such things could exist and operate around us.
One of my favorite quotes runs thus:
"If you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, the work becomes corrupted, impure, and ultimately self-destructive." - LennierI try to follow its advice and root out my own biases and corruption so I may better reach what I seek, whether its a world driven by logic or by magic.
Living inside a Box
Its old, but it will not age.
Go ahead and enjoy that piece, right now if its convenient. (Full screen of course.) Let me know when you notice what makes it even more special than it already is. Beautiful sound, visual, and composition beyond compare. This is around the fourth time I have returned to it. It keeps drawing me back so I can enjoy it once more.
Go ahead and enjoy that piece, right now if its convenient. (Full screen of course.) Let me know when you notice what makes it even more special than it already is. Beautiful sound, visual, and composition beyond compare. This is around the fourth time I have returned to it. It keeps drawing me back so I can enjoy it once more.
03 November 2011
Open your Ears
Listen.
Do you hear that? Its silence.
Maybe you are in a crowded room, and everyone around you is chatting and laughing. Don't worry, you're still listening to silence. There are hundreds of sounds and tones are hearing, but there are hundreds more you aren't. No matter where you go, what cacophony you are in the midst, there is always silence around you. You just have to listen for it.
Do you hear that? Its silence.
Maybe you are in a crowded room, and everyone around you is chatting and laughing. Don't worry, you're still listening to silence. There are hundreds of sounds and tones are hearing, but there are hundreds more you aren't. No matter where you go, what cacophony you are in the midst, there is always silence around you. You just have to listen for it.
02 November 2011
Art and Games
Just a note - in the sense of self expression, games are most definitely art.
In the sense of good art - art that makes you reflect on what it means to be human, and makes you change the way you see the world around you - this definition is true for a lot of games and people who play games, but mostly on an individual level. Not on a universal level that some paintings, books, and movies have accomplished. By this definition, games are almost, but not quite masterpieces of art yet. There is nothing holding them back, not by any means.
Just my opinion, but I think that clears up a lot of the problems I was having.
In the sense of good art - art that makes you reflect on what it means to be human, and makes you change the way you see the world around you - this definition is true for a lot of games and people who play games, but mostly on an individual level. Not on a universal level that some paintings, books, and movies have accomplished. By this definition, games are almost, but not quite masterpieces of art yet. There is nothing holding them back, not by any means.
Just my opinion, but I think that clears up a lot of the problems I was having.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)