I am relieved that, although I was bitch-slapped earlier today, it seems to have gotten sorted out. I hate it when people do that - makes me feel like a heel.
So I rented some flicks. Someone here suggested Buena Vista Social Club so I snagged that. Haven't watched it yet, though. But I do love Wim Wenders. I watched a documentary about Jack Nance, the actor. It sounds like he was an interesting person but the video itself was pretty boring. Also watched the bonus footage on the DVD of Manufacturing Consent. It was fun to see Noam Chomsky spar with William F. Buckley, Jr. and Michel Foucault. Why do post-modernists bother me so much? I also have Cold Creek Manor or whatever it's called. It's supposed to be pretty bad but I like Mike Figgis, especially Time Code and Loss of Sexual Innocence. That new TV show by Stephen King is on tonight - Kingdom Hospital or whatever it's called. I mentioned this to the guy at the video store and we both agreed to watch it to see how badly he butchered Lars von Trier's masterpiece. OK, so I'm being a pompous ass but I loved the original and fear for its fate at the hands of Mr. King.
Anyway, I'm thankful that people give me crap in their diaries and leave links with me in mind too. What else? Oh! I've got some CDs for which I can't find a home. Does anyone want them? Abraxas (remastered w/bonus trax) by Santana, the latest Mars Volta, a live Allman Bros., a Fishy mix, et al. (A crossfade on the Fish CD I burned today didn't turn out quite the way I wanted it to so I'm gonna rehoolie it.) So, if anyone is up for them, please let me know. Also, anyone want a free copy of Gaia by James Lovelock?
OK, dinner is nearly done and King's hoolie will be on soon. Must prepare...
03 March, 2004
02 March, 2004
Disturbing...
I have to say that I found this article disturbing. No, very, very disturbing. What kind of parent would do that to a 7 year-old girl?
Sods'n'Odds
In perhaps a minor bit of synchronicity, I find it interesting that I should be embroiled in a debate on gender at a time when I find myself listening to a couple songs on boys/men/masculinity. I just went to the store and saw some teenage boys there. Since my mind is disposed to such things, I immediately started thinking about masculinity, especially how teenagers seem to be hyper-masculine. They take a trait and magnify it without understanding restraint or that "being a man" means more than showboating, acting tough, picking fights, and the like.
As I type, across the street a father holds his young daughter while his son and another boy from the neighborhood are on the lawn hitting each other with these long colored foam tubes. Not only is masculinity unfolding in more than one guise, but there's a major opportunity for some Freudian phallus analysis as well.
So I get home and see what's going on across the street. And I think about a couple of the songs in my WMP playlist. One of them drew some direct inspiration from the book King Warrior Magician Lover: Rediscovering the Archetype of the Mature Masculine by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette. While I find some of the Jungian concepts to be suspect, I think the book is interesting nonetheless. It provides some goods way to think about masculinity. I bought the book shortly after hearing the aforementioned songs in 1997. At around the same time, I developed some new interests as I underwent some personal changes. One thing that I became interested in was tradition - what it is, what it does for us, and how it is transmitted by people through time. So, as I read Moore and Gillette's book, the idea of theirs that struck me the most was the concept of the masculine ritual process. That is, how a society initiates boys into manhood. The authors felt that our culture was very deficient in this respect and I can't say that I disagree with them.
At that time in 1997, too many things happened too quickly and I neglected to foster these interests as much as I should have. Now, with this recent discussion, perhaps I'll delve back into the thick of things. So mote it be.
Alright, I've finally taken necessary steps to improving my cultural knowledge quotient - I've placed a couple holds on items at the library. One person recommended Little Birds by Anais Nin while someone else suggested the song "Three Hours" by Nick Drake. Ergo the book and an appropriate CD will soon be in my clutches. I'll let y'all know how they are.
As I type, across the street a father holds his young daughter while his son and another boy from the neighborhood are on the lawn hitting each other with these long colored foam tubes. Not only is masculinity unfolding in more than one guise, but there's a major opportunity for some Freudian phallus analysis as well.
So I get home and see what's going on across the street. And I think about a couple of the songs in my WMP playlist. One of them drew some direct inspiration from the book King Warrior Magician Lover: Rediscovering the Archetype of the Mature Masculine by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette. While I find some of the Jungian concepts to be suspect, I think the book is interesting nonetheless. It provides some goods way to think about masculinity. I bought the book shortly after hearing the aforementioned songs in 1997. At around the same time, I developed some new interests as I underwent some personal changes. One thing that I became interested in was tradition - what it is, what it does for us, and how it is transmitted by people through time. So, as I read Moore and Gillette's book, the idea of theirs that struck me the most was the concept of the masculine ritual process. That is, how a society initiates boys into manhood. The authors felt that our culture was very deficient in this respect and I can't say that I disagree with them.
At that time in 1997, too many things happened too quickly and I neglected to foster these interests as much as I should have. Now, with this recent discussion, perhaps I'll delve back into the thick of things. So mote it be.
Alright, I've finally taken necessary steps to improving my cultural knowledge quotient - I've placed a couple holds on items at the library. One person recommended Little Birds by Anais Nin while someone else suggested the song "Three Hours" by Nick Drake. Ergo the book and an appropriate CD will soon be in my clutches. I'll let y'all know how they are.
Pink, Blue, and the Shades Between
Alright. I am now thoroughly confused by this whole gender issue. Here's the first bit that threw me for a loop:
"alright, he argues that there is scientific proof saying that men are inherintly more aggressive. true, but there is also scientific proof that contradicts this. obviously it's true that generally men are larger than women. it is also often said that men are stronger than women, when in fact that is not true. the basis of strength is usually measured by upper body strength, like how much one can bench-press. but the standart measure of strength is biased to women as women are generally stronger than men in lower-body strength, as our legs and bums are built to support a 9 month pregnant belly. so it's not necessarily true that men are stronger than women."
We start off talking about aggression, it is accepted as true, then told that it's not. Either the assertion that men are generally more aggressive than women is true or it's not. If it is true and data exist that contradicts it, then it's either not true or the data are unreliable.
As far as anatomy goes, to say that women have lower bodies built for pregnancy whereas men have greater upper-body strength is true. But it belies the point that men's bodies are, generally, more suited for physical exertion. And, if physiology is to be a marker of aggression, then it is men who are the more aggressive. To wit:
"Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the use of force. Their joints are well suited for throwing objects. A man’s skull is almost always thicker and stronger than a women’s. The stereotype that men are more "thick-headed" than women is not far fetched. A man’s "thick headedness", and other anatomical differences have been associated with a uniquely male attraction to high speed activities and reckless behavior that usually involve collisions with other males or automobiles. Men invented the game "chicken", not women. Men, and a number of other male species of animal seem to charge and crash into each other a great deal in their spare time."
On average, men have larger bodies, run faster, throw further, jump higher, etc.
She then addresses my comment on rape:
"and tim brings up rape. which i think is actually quite a good topic to bring up. men are definitely more prone to rape someone rather than women. in my last post i talked about how the gender split is restrictive & repressive. rape fits in with this. alright, men are socialized to be non-emotional, physically agressive to prove their manhood, macho-types."
What I tried to do and failed at in my last entry was to provide some evidence that gender is rooted, in part, in our genes. How are men socialized to be phsyically agressive, etc.?
"this isnt something hardwired in their body, there isnt an emotional gene. its that society has made men this way."
This is nothing but a repetition of some piety. She cites a male rape vicim who "said that because he was a man, and was always socialized to be non-emotional and a tough guy, he had to keep all of the pain inside of him." Again, I ask for an explanation of and proof for this mechanism. Society/culture is not this disinterested 3rd party that imposes its will upon people. It is composed of people. And, if people have inherent tendencies and traits, why would one not expect these to things in the culture made up of these people? To say that there's no emotional gene is to misunderstand genetics. As I said previously, there seem to be very few one-to-one correlations between a gene and a specific trait. In the same way that there is no gene for sex drive doesn't mean that society or our culture makes us have a libido. The expression of genes is not equivalent to the wave of a magic wand. They do things like trigger hormones and testosterone is linked with aggressive behavior. I'll end this bit with a quote by Richard Tremblay, a psychologist who studies the develpment of anti-social behavior in children: "Babies do not kill each other, because we do not give them access to knives and guns. The question...we've been trying to answer for the past 30 years is how do children learn to aggress. [But] that's the wrong question. The right question is how do they learn not to aggress." {Emphasis mine.}
Next up is the topic of hermaphroditism. She says:
"oh..and about hermaphrodites...yes, they are pretty rare, but what does that have to do with anything??? ditto for them being sterile. is it because they are 'rare' one should consider them freaks?"
They have to do with anything in that she brought them up, not I. She said in her earlier reposte:
"in one study i read, if hermaphrodites were accepted, we would actually have multiple sexes. there would be the man and the woman. then there would be varying degree of mixes. some hermaphrodites have more 'womanly biological parts', others more manly, others a 50/50. our world would be so much different if we were to accept hermaphrodites as they are...just think...what would happen to mens & womens toilets. where do hermaphrodites go? what about changing rooms? what do they do when they fill in the census and have to check male or female."
Now, to me, if hermaphroditism is very rare, then it would seem that its acceptance would have a negligible effect. Again, I didn't introduce it into the conversation so I am befuddled as to why I am being asked what it has to do with anything. Now, are for hermaphroditism being rare and being considered "freaks"...Personally, I think they should be considered people who are different in one respect or another from the vast majority of the human race and should be accommodated as far as possible. And they should be treated like any non-hermaphrodite - based on their personality, on how they are as individuals.
Lastly, she says:
"wouldn't lives of both men and women be much more positive if it were o.k. for men to cry when they want, to sit around and talk about their feelings...it would be so healthy if the barriers between the 2 genders were brought down, like men being able to be more open & emotion, and for women it would be to not be the submissive sex."
Exactly what would be better? To me, and this could be a gross misunderstanding on my part, it sounds like she's saying "Look, things would be better this way and, if our genes our involved, then we can't change anything and the situation is hopeless. Thusly it's all society's fault because it can be changed." Could it be the case that she wants her cake and to eat it too? I mean, does she expect men to merely be able to turn certain things on and off like a light? Can we take on more traditionally feminine characteristics and be expected to turn around and be aggressive when needed, say, as in a time of war? I don't claim to have the answer but I throw it out as food for thought.
My main objection is the tendency for her to just posit a statement like "society does this to men (or women)" and leave it at that. We are supposed to just accept it at face value. And I can't. I won't. If I'm wrong, if all of the science I've been reading is wrong, show me. Tell me how it's wrong.
In the late 1980s, Donald Brown, an anthropologist by trade, I believe, poured through ethnogrpahic literature and came up with a list of human universals - traits that all human cultures share. Among them are:
male and female and adult and child seen as having different natures
males dominate public/political realm
males more aggressive
males more prone to physical violence
males more prone to theft
sex(gender) terminology is fundamentally binary
females do more direct childcare
sex differences
sex differences in spatial cognition and behavior
If my antagonist is right, then this means that every society on the planet is evil and imposes gender roles - and more or less the same gender roles.
One thing I don't want to give the impression of is that, because, for example, males more prone to physical violence, then it's over and things can't get better. Because it can. Take statements like "males more prone to physical violence" at face value. It is a statement of quantity, not quality. It doesn NOT mean that every man will be indiscriminately violent. It does NOT justify murder, spousal abuse, rape, or any other such horrid behavior. What is does say is that making society teach men to be a certain way is not the answer to the problem. Society, the individual, friends, family - everyone has a role to play. Take rape.
My alma mater is very politically correct. As an incoming freshman, I attended an orientation seminar which gave alarming statistics on date rape and bascially said that I, by virtue of being male, was a rapist. (Even worse, I am white.) Rape, we were told, was all about violence and had nothing to do with sex. It was absurd. However nice it would be for a scantily-clad woman to go to a party with a bunch of drunk, horny young men and have absolutely 0% chance of being raped, it is unrealistic. Preventing such rapes is about men showing restraint, about men helping regulate the behavior of other men, about friends helping and, if need be, stopping friends from doing things, and women doing everything they can to keep themselves out of situations which are made dangerous or, at least greatly exacerbated, by drugs and, I dare say, hormones. Rape has a sexual component and I think it's a disservice to women - a great disservice - to tell them that it doesn't. In addition to the love of others we have, making music, painting, and all of the wonderful atrifacts of our creativity that in some measure distinguish us from other simians, we also make war and kill and hurt. We are human animals. We have great intellectual and artistic capacities unique to us that sit side-by-side with baser instincts common to all animals. Society, in my view, has a prominent role to play because it is made of people with all the good and bad characteristics above. Our society/culture should (must?) change but it must also change in such a way as to conform to reality, to promote, encourage, and enhance the best of us.
Alright - my loghorrea has been cured. For the moment, anyway. One other thing I want to say is that I hope no one thinks that I think my antagonist is an idiot or any such thing. It's just that such debates make me more aggressive. (hehe) I am enjoying it immensely. Anyone who says that I am being unduly harsh or that I don't think Ms. Storm is anything other than intelligent, witty, and charming will be severely thrashed across the butt. In addition, I have all of your credit card numbers and will gladly start charging subscriptions at my current favorite porn site for me and all my friends who enjoy porn, which includes women.
"alright, he argues that there is scientific proof saying that men are inherintly more aggressive. true, but there is also scientific proof that contradicts this. obviously it's true that generally men are larger than women. it is also often said that men are stronger than women, when in fact that is not true. the basis of strength is usually measured by upper body strength, like how much one can bench-press. but the standart measure of strength is biased to women as women are generally stronger than men in lower-body strength, as our legs and bums are built to support a 9 month pregnant belly. so it's not necessarily true that men are stronger than women."
We start off talking about aggression, it is accepted as true, then told that it's not. Either the assertion that men are generally more aggressive than women is true or it's not. If it is true and data exist that contradicts it, then it's either not true or the data are unreliable.
As far as anatomy goes, to say that women have lower bodies built for pregnancy whereas men have greater upper-body strength is true. But it belies the point that men's bodies are, generally, more suited for physical exertion. And, if physiology is to be a marker of aggression, then it is men who are the more aggressive. To wit:
On average, men have larger bodies, run faster, throw further, jump higher, etc.
She then addresses my comment on rape:
"and tim brings up rape. which i think is actually quite a good topic to bring up. men are definitely more prone to rape someone rather than women. in my last post i talked about how the gender split is restrictive & repressive. rape fits in with this. alright, men are socialized to be non-emotional, physically agressive to prove their manhood, macho-types."
What I tried to do and failed at in my last entry was to provide some evidence that gender is rooted, in part, in our genes. How are men socialized to be phsyically agressive, etc.?
"this isnt something hardwired in their body, there isnt an emotional gene. its that society has made men this way."
This is nothing but a repetition of some piety. She cites a male rape vicim who "said that because he was a man, and was always socialized to be non-emotional and a tough guy, he had to keep all of the pain inside of him." Again, I ask for an explanation of and proof for this mechanism. Society/culture is not this disinterested 3rd party that imposes its will upon people. It is composed of people. And, if people have inherent tendencies and traits, why would one not expect these to things in the culture made up of these people? To say that there's no emotional gene is to misunderstand genetics. As I said previously, there seem to be very few one-to-one correlations between a gene and a specific trait. In the same way that there is no gene for sex drive doesn't mean that society or our culture makes us have a libido. The expression of genes is not equivalent to the wave of a magic wand. They do things like trigger hormones and testosterone is linked with aggressive behavior. I'll end this bit with a quote by Richard Tremblay, a psychologist who studies the develpment of anti-social behavior in children: "Babies do not kill each other, because we do not give them access to knives and guns. The question...we've been trying to answer for the past 30 years is how do children learn to aggress. [But] that's the wrong question. The right question is how do they learn not to aggress." {Emphasis mine.}
Next up is the topic of hermaphroditism. She says:
"oh..and about hermaphrodites...yes, they are pretty rare, but what does that have to do with anything??? ditto for them being sterile. is it because they are 'rare' one should consider them freaks?"
They have to do with anything in that she brought them up, not I. She said in her earlier reposte:
"in one study i read, if hermaphrodites were accepted, we would actually have multiple sexes. there would be the man and the woman. then there would be varying degree of mixes. some hermaphrodites have more 'womanly biological parts', others more manly, others a 50/50. our world would be so much different if we were to accept hermaphrodites as they are...just think...what would happen to mens & womens toilets. where do hermaphrodites go? what about changing rooms? what do they do when they fill in the census and have to check male or female."
Now, to me, if hermaphroditism is very rare, then it would seem that its acceptance would have a negligible effect. Again, I didn't introduce it into the conversation so I am befuddled as to why I am being asked what it has to do with anything. Now, are for hermaphroditism being rare and being considered "freaks"...Personally, I think they should be considered people who are different in one respect or another from the vast majority of the human race and should be accommodated as far as possible. And they should be treated like any non-hermaphrodite - based on their personality, on how they are as individuals.
Lastly, she says:
"wouldn't lives of both men and women be much more positive if it were o.k. for men to cry when they want, to sit around and talk about their feelings...it would be so healthy if the barriers between the 2 genders were brought down, like men being able to be more open & emotion, and for women it would be to not be the submissive sex."
Exactly what would be better? To me, and this could be a gross misunderstanding on my part, it sounds like she's saying "Look, things would be better this way and, if our genes our involved, then we can't change anything and the situation is hopeless. Thusly it's all society's fault because it can be changed." Could it be the case that she wants her cake and to eat it too? I mean, does she expect men to merely be able to turn certain things on and off like a light? Can we take on more traditionally feminine characteristics and be expected to turn around and be aggressive when needed, say, as in a time of war? I don't claim to have the answer but I throw it out as food for thought.
My main objection is the tendency for her to just posit a statement like "society does this to men (or women)" and leave it at that. We are supposed to just accept it at face value. And I can't. I won't. If I'm wrong, if all of the science I've been reading is wrong, show me. Tell me how it's wrong.
In the late 1980s, Donald Brown, an anthropologist by trade, I believe, poured through ethnogrpahic literature and came up with a list of human universals - traits that all human cultures share. Among them are:
males dominate public/political realm
males more aggressive
males more prone to physical violence
males more prone to theft
sex(gender) terminology is fundamentally binary
females do more direct childcare
sex differences
sex differences in spatial cognition and behavior
One thing I don't want to give the impression of is that, because, for example, males more prone to physical violence, then it's over and things can't get better. Because it can. Take statements like "males more prone to physical violence" at face value. It is a statement of quantity, not quality. It doesn NOT mean that every man will be indiscriminately violent. It does NOT justify murder, spousal abuse, rape, or any other such horrid behavior. What is does say is that making society teach men to be a certain way is not the answer to the problem. Society, the individual, friends, family - everyone has a role to play. Take rape.
My alma mater is very politically correct. As an incoming freshman, I attended an orientation seminar which gave alarming statistics on date rape and bascially said that I, by virtue of being male, was a rapist. (Even worse, I am white.) Rape, we were told, was all about violence and had nothing to do with sex. It was absurd. However nice it would be for a scantily-clad woman to go to a party with a bunch of drunk, horny young men and have absolutely 0% chance of being raped, it is unrealistic. Preventing such rapes is about men showing restraint, about men helping regulate the behavior of other men, about friends helping and, if need be, stopping friends from doing things, and women doing everything they can to keep themselves out of situations which are made dangerous or, at least greatly exacerbated, by drugs and, I dare say, hormones. Rape has a sexual component and I think it's a disservice to women - a great disservice - to tell them that it doesn't. In addition to the love of others we have, making music, painting, and all of the wonderful atrifacts of our creativity that in some measure distinguish us from other simians, we also make war and kill and hurt. We are human animals. We have great intellectual and artistic capacities unique to us that sit side-by-side with baser instincts common to all animals. Society, in my view, has a prominent role to play because it is made of people with all the good and bad characteristics above. Our society/culture should (must?) change but it must also change in such a way as to conform to reality, to promote, encourage, and enhance the best of us.
Alright - my loghorrea has been cured. For the moment, anyway. One other thing I want to say is that I hope no one thinks that I think my antagonist is an idiot or any such thing. It's just that such debates make me more aggressive. (hehe) I am enjoying it immensely. Anyone who says that I am being unduly harsh or that I don't think Ms. Storm is anything other than intelligent, witty, and charming will be severely thrashed across the butt. In addition, I have all of your credit card numbers and will gladly start charging subscriptions at my current favorite porn site for me and all my friends who enjoy porn, which includes women.
01 March, 2004
Pink vs. Blue
It seems that my previous entry not only saw a few of you taking pride in your mysterious powers but also one person taking exception. In fact, she emailed me on the issue. And since my response was invited, I now offer it.
Aside from her thoughts on women having a nebulous "6th sense", she addressed the issue of sex and gender with sex being an indication of which gonads a person has and gender being an aggregate set of behaviors associated with one of the sexes. She says:
"i believe that gender is socially constructed. society, in general, has decided what has been deemed masculine & feminine, and in turn, men and women have accepted this formula...i think that ideas of gender are generally restrictive. i see gender as just a way that you 'act.' it is all a performance, rather than a way of being. one is not born 'masculine' or 'feminine', one acts these things."
Personally, I disagree with this statement. As I maintained in the previous Conversation, humans are not born with blank slates that society casually fills in as it pleases. She continues:
"our society has driven into our heads that women are the nurturing sex. we are the caring sex. and also, the needy sex. but is there anything in our biology to actually prove this?"
There is an ever-increasing amount of data to show that, yes, this is the case. The ideas of masculinity and femininity are present in all human cultures. For instance, men are more aggressive, not just in the United States or the West, they are that way in all societies.
Such sex differences are also very prevalent in primates and mammals generally. The physical traits of men (ie - that they are usually bigger than women) and the diversity of mitochondrial DNA suggests that the "sterotypical" roles in mating are true: namely that men compete for women while women are highly selective in choosing mates.
The brains of men and women have physical differences. Men's brains are larger and have more neurons but women have more grey matter. I quote here: "The interstitial nuclei in the anterior hypothalamus, and a nucleus of the stria terminalis, also in the hypothalamus, are larger in men; they have been implicated in sexual behavior and aggressiveness." Increased levels of testosterone are linked to the drive for dominance.
A study followed 25 genetically male humans who were born with cloacal exstrosphy - without a penis. They were castrated and raised as girls yet they exhibited the behavior of boys. See also research on children afflicted with Turner's syndrome in which the person has only a single X chromosome.
And take rape, as an example. "Rapists are not representative of the male gender. They are overwhelmingly young men, the age of the most intense sexual competitiveness. The young males who allegedly have been 'socialized' to rape mysteriously lose that socialization as they get older."
My readers continues:
"so like i said, i think the gender split is restrictive. by saying there are 2 clear cut genders, it leads to a big gap between the sexes. cross-dressers & transvestites & transgenders break down those barriers."
I will admit ignorance here as I'm not really sure what she means by "restrictive" here. Having 2 arms instead of 4 is restrictive in certain ways but we have no problem accepting having only 2 of them. She then goes on to talk about transvestites:
":for instance-take the case of cross-dressers. cross-dressers are people who enjoy wearing clothes identified with the other gender. cross-dressers play the gender roles. a male who dresses like a woman, and moreover 'acts' feminine by acting a bit campy shows that gender is something that is played, is pretend. something that people act out."
It shows no such thing. When an actor plays a serial killer in a movie, do we point to it as proof that he is really a serial killer at heart but has been conditioned not to be that way?
Next comes hermaphroditism:
"personally, i think hermaphrodites shouldn't be given surgical procedures at all. because there is really nothing physically wrong with them. in one study i read, if hermaphrodites were accepted, we would actually have multiple sexes. there would be the man and the woman. then there would be varying degree of mixes. some hermaphrodites have more 'womanly biological parts', others more manly, others a 50/50. our world would be so much different if we were to accept hermaphrodites as they are...just think...what would happen to mens & womens toilets. where do hermaphrodites go? what about changing rooms? what do they do when they fill in the census and have to check male or female."
Now, I was under the impression that a) true hermaphroditism was very rare among humans and that b) they are mostly, if not all, sterile. So that needs to be sorted out.
The thing is, masculinity and femininity are not really set in stone - they're generalities. There are men who have feminine traits and vice versa. But so what? And so what if men are born into a masculine role and women into a feminine role? I don't understand what restrictions and barriers these roles create. That men are generally more aggressive doesn't condone rape, war, and violence. Nor does it mean that men cannot be good, compassionate individuals. Just because women may generally be more caring and nurturing does not mean that their place is in the home. Nor does it mean that all women are compassionate, caring individuals.
If you seek equality between the genders, then you seek a to have a certain moral view which says that you treat your fellow human being well, with respect and dignity. Equality is not that men and women are exactly alike excepting gonads. Besides, while there are differences in gender that arise from a person's sex, there are countless shared traits between men and women that arise by virtue of being human. We all have the same sets of emotions, we all love our children as well as making them, everyone has needs and sometimes go about fulfilling them in less than savory ways, etc. The emphasis should be on our commonalities while taking into consideration our differences.
A question: if gender roles were imposed by society and you could snap your fingers to change them, what would you make them into? Would society be populated by a bunch of homogenous, androgynous, unisex things?
Aside from her thoughts on women having a nebulous "6th sense", she addressed the issue of sex and gender with sex being an indication of which gonads a person has and gender being an aggregate set of behaviors associated with one of the sexes. She says:
"i believe that gender is socially constructed. society, in general, has decided what has been deemed masculine & feminine, and in turn, men and women have accepted this formula...i think that ideas of gender are generally restrictive. i see gender as just a way that you 'act.' it is all a performance, rather than a way of being. one is not born 'masculine' or 'feminine', one acts these things."
Personally, I disagree with this statement. As I maintained in the previous Conversation, humans are not born with blank slates that society casually fills in as it pleases. She continues:
"our society has driven into our heads that women are the nurturing sex. we are the caring sex. and also, the needy sex. but is there anything in our biology to actually prove this?"
There is an ever-increasing amount of data to show that, yes, this is the case. The ideas of masculinity and femininity are present in all human cultures. For instance, men are more aggressive, not just in the United States or the West, they are that way in all societies.
Such sex differences are also very prevalent in primates and mammals generally. The physical traits of men (ie - that they are usually bigger than women) and the diversity of mitochondrial DNA suggests that the "sterotypical" roles in mating are true: namely that men compete for women while women are highly selective in choosing mates.
The brains of men and women have physical differences. Men's brains are larger and have more neurons but women have more grey matter. I quote here: "The interstitial nuclei in the anterior hypothalamus, and a nucleus of the stria terminalis, also in the hypothalamus, are larger in men; they have been implicated in sexual behavior and aggressiveness." Increased levels of testosterone are linked to the drive for dominance.
A study followed 25 genetically male humans who were born with cloacal exstrosphy - without a penis. They were castrated and raised as girls yet they exhibited the behavior of boys. See also research on children afflicted with Turner's syndrome in which the person has only a single X chromosome.
And take rape, as an example. "Rapists are not representative of the male gender. They are overwhelmingly young men, the age of the most intense sexual competitiveness. The young males who allegedly have been 'socialized' to rape mysteriously lose that socialization as they get older."
My readers continues:
"so like i said, i think the gender split is restrictive. by saying there are 2 clear cut genders, it leads to a big gap between the sexes. cross-dressers & transvestites & transgenders break down those barriers."
I will admit ignorance here as I'm not really sure what she means by "restrictive" here. Having 2 arms instead of 4 is restrictive in certain ways but we have no problem accepting having only 2 of them. She then goes on to talk about transvestites:
":for instance-take the case of cross-dressers. cross-dressers are people who enjoy wearing clothes identified with the other gender. cross-dressers play the gender roles. a male who dresses like a woman, and moreover 'acts' feminine by acting a bit campy shows that gender is something that is played, is pretend. something that people act out."
It shows no such thing. When an actor plays a serial killer in a movie, do we point to it as proof that he is really a serial killer at heart but has been conditioned not to be that way?
Next comes hermaphroditism:
"personally, i think hermaphrodites shouldn't be given surgical procedures at all. because there is really nothing physically wrong with them. in one study i read, if hermaphrodites were accepted, we would actually have multiple sexes. there would be the man and the woman. then there would be varying degree of mixes. some hermaphrodites have more 'womanly biological parts', others more manly, others a 50/50. our world would be so much different if we were to accept hermaphrodites as they are...just think...what would happen to mens & womens toilets. where do hermaphrodites go? what about changing rooms? what do they do when they fill in the census and have to check male or female."
Now, I was under the impression that a) true hermaphroditism was very rare among humans and that b) they are mostly, if not all, sterile. So that needs to be sorted out.
The thing is, masculinity and femininity are not really set in stone - they're generalities. There are men who have feminine traits and vice versa. But so what? And so what if men are born into a masculine role and women into a feminine role? I don't understand what restrictions and barriers these roles create. That men are generally more aggressive doesn't condone rape, war, and violence. Nor does it mean that men cannot be good, compassionate individuals. Just because women may generally be more caring and nurturing does not mean that their place is in the home. Nor does it mean that all women are compassionate, caring individuals.
If you seek equality between the genders, then you seek a to have a certain moral view which says that you treat your fellow human being well, with respect and dignity. Equality is not that men and women are exactly alike excepting gonads. Besides, while there are differences in gender that arise from a person's sex, there are countless shared traits between men and women that arise by virtue of being human. We all have the same sets of emotions, we all love our children as well as making them, everyone has needs and sometimes go about fulfilling them in less than savory ways, etc. The emphasis should be on our commonalities while taking into consideration our differences.
A question: if gender roles were imposed by society and you could snap your fingers to change them, what would you make them into? Would society be populated by a bunch of homogenous, androgynous, unisex things?
The Power of Women
Well, I finally went and got my taxes. I owe the Feds but the state owes me. I'll be mailing my states forms this afternoon along with a copy of my resume.
The other day I went to the coffeehouse and the owner was manning the guns by herself. As I strode in, she was busy doing whatever it is that baristas do and had her back turned to me. A few seconds later, she turned around, saw me, and got me some joe. When we started talking, she told me that she knew it was me who had walked in and that she can always tell when I enter without even seeing me. She just somehow perceives my presence. I found this bit of information scary as I pride myself on my ninja-like stealth. Do all women have this ability? Are there people in your lives who, upon entering a room unseen, are noticed by some part of your brains? I've noticed that women tend to have these eldritch abilities. For instance, there was the time when I was a kid watching TV and my dad had fallen asleep on the couch behind me. It was no big deal until he started snoring. Then my mother walks in and notices what's happening. So she walks over to my father and quietly says in his ear, "David - stop snoring..." And he did. I sat there in awe of my mother. I mean, did she have these visions of me raiding the cookie jar when she wasn't home? What else did she know?
Such powers that women have over men make me feel helpless. I mean, they can sense your presence AND take advantage of you sleeping by giving you orders when you're unconscious and vulnerable. What else can you gals do?
One thing I know you frauleins can do is discern emotional states. I am fucking terrible at this. Unless a woman is obviously in distress, I have no idea what's on her mind and just assume it's business as usual. Men's brains are just different. We're not looking for emotional residue on people's faces, we're looking for actions and movements like punches and knees to the groin. I swear, all of my girlfriends knew when something was weighing on my mind. No matter how hard I tried to hide it, they knew. And the worst part is that women tend to feed on such things, you females thrive on sharing and talking about emotional states. So, if I conceded that something was wrong but didn't want to talk about it, I'd be prodded to spill my guts. "Here, sit down and talk to me," she'd say. Then I'd be led to the kitchen table with a light hanging above it just like in police interrogation rooms on TV. And I'd spill the beans almost every time. No matter how mad I may have been at her, no matter what it was and how much I didn't want to talk about it, I'd find myself telling her everything, embellishing every detail. I don't know how it happens. One minute I'm poised for silence and the next I'm confessing the whole 9 yards. All it takes is just one little sentence to be coaxed out of me and the floodgates are opened.
How do you women do this? Am I the only guy in the world this happens to? Women know when I enter the room, they can read me like a book, they can get me to confess to anything, and they can brainwash me while I'm asleep. At least I suspect so but I have no proof of this. I feel so defenseless.
The other day I went to the coffeehouse and the owner was manning the guns by herself. As I strode in, she was busy doing whatever it is that baristas do and had her back turned to me. A few seconds later, she turned around, saw me, and got me some joe. When we started talking, she told me that she knew it was me who had walked in and that she can always tell when I enter without even seeing me. She just somehow perceives my presence. I found this bit of information scary as I pride myself on my ninja-like stealth. Do all women have this ability? Are there people in your lives who, upon entering a room unseen, are noticed by some part of your brains? I've noticed that women tend to have these eldritch abilities. For instance, there was the time when I was a kid watching TV and my dad had fallen asleep on the couch behind me. It was no big deal until he started snoring. Then my mother walks in and notices what's happening. So she walks over to my father and quietly says in his ear, "David - stop snoring..." And he did. I sat there in awe of my mother. I mean, did she have these visions of me raiding the cookie jar when she wasn't home? What else did she know?
Such powers that women have over men make me feel helpless. I mean, they can sense your presence AND take advantage of you sleeping by giving you orders when you're unconscious and vulnerable. What else can you gals do?
One thing I know you frauleins can do is discern emotional states. I am fucking terrible at this. Unless a woman is obviously in distress, I have no idea what's on her mind and just assume it's business as usual. Men's brains are just different. We're not looking for emotional residue on people's faces, we're looking for actions and movements like punches and knees to the groin. I swear, all of my girlfriends knew when something was weighing on my mind. No matter how hard I tried to hide it, they knew. And the worst part is that women tend to feed on such things, you females thrive on sharing and talking about emotional states. So, if I conceded that something was wrong but didn't want to talk about it, I'd be prodded to spill my guts. "Here, sit down and talk to me," she'd say. Then I'd be led to the kitchen table with a light hanging above it just like in police interrogation rooms on TV. And I'd spill the beans almost every time. No matter how mad I may have been at her, no matter what it was and how much I didn't want to talk about it, I'd find myself telling her everything, embellishing every detail. I don't know how it happens. One minute I'm poised for silence and the next I'm confessing the whole 9 yards. All it takes is just one little sentence to be coaxed out of me and the floodgates are opened.
How do you women do this? Am I the only guy in the world this happens to? Women know when I enter the room, they can read me like a book, they can get me to confess to anything, and they can brainwash me while I'm asleep. At least I suspect so but I have no proof of this. I feel so defenseless.
29 February, 2004
The Conversation Continues
Peter: Honesty Felicia, you don't want to hear the story. It's not very exciting and doesn't make much sense - even to me.
Felicia: Hey, you brought it up.
P: OK, OK. Let me ask you a question: What do you think human nature is?
F: What's this got to do with your story?
P: Quite a bit, actually. I'm trying to make it interesting and give context - humor me.
F: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "human nature"...
P: Well, when a person is born, do you think there's some kind of programming in place? Instincts?
F: I think there's some, yes.
P: Like what?
F: Well, like the instinct to suckle, to recognize the faces of our mother - stuff like that.
P: What about other things that are, perhaps, not related to the absolute necessities in life like nourishment. Do you think people are born with a certain disposition? Exempli gratia, are some white children born to dislike non-whites?
F: No, I think that is something people learn. Like language. No one is born knowing one but they can be taught.
P: So, what you're saying is is that people don't have specific traits built-in but rather that they have the ability to acquire them...?
F: Yeah, I think that's fair to say. I mean, isn't it obvious?
P: Well, you'd think so but it hasn't always been viewed that way.
F: Why not?
P: Take for instance, the premises that our country was founded upon. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by liberalism when they wrote the Constitution...
F: You mean they were liberals?
P: No, I mean they were influenced by classical liberalism which today is closest to libertarianism. And the earliest thinkers who contributed to liberalism were people like Thomas Hobbies, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. They all espoused a variation of social contract theory...
F: You're losing me here. What's this got to do with human nature?
P: Patience, Grasshopper. Anyway, social contract theory is predicated on a certain view of human nature. For Hobbes, this was that men are basically beasts. He refers to the "state of nature" in which the life of men was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In other words, without the structure and authority of society, people's true nature comes out - we'd go around stealing, killing, raping, pillaging and such. Capitalism is similar in that it takes for granted that people work in their own self-interest. Locke and Rousseau had a more positive spin on things. For them, the state of nature was different and more positive: we are naturally reasonable creatures. And so freedom and its preservation were paramount as was the idea that governments are not trustworthy, that the power lies with individuals who are tolerant and reasonable in a state of nature because they pursue a set of natural laws given to use by God. Since everyone is free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions", they need a mechanism - contracts. Thusly the role of government is minimal. It's there merely to maintain freedom and to uphold contracts between free people who enter into them of their own volition and with an understanding of the elements of the exchange and the ramifications. For Locke, a gevernment is not there to encourage specific behaviors via any kind of paternalism. This idea lead to the idea of laissez faire capitalism. Add in some utilitarianism and a world in which people enter into contracts for things which they cannot understand and things get complicated.
F: I understand that - but isn't it true? Don't people look out only for themselves? Don't people take advantage of each other if given the opportunity? History is full of wars, and plots and murders - not only was our country founded upon the ideas of liberalism, but also the genocide of the Native Americans.
P: True, quite true. There's no doubt that people have been, are, and will be extremely cruel to one another. But, is this the only behavior, the only attitude that we are known to exhibit? I mean, have you killed anyone? Do you hate everyone you pass on the street?
F: Well, no, of course not.
P: So, why is that? Why are there countless instances of people not plotting against their neighbors, of people giving their lives in war for their country, and the like?
F: As for your first question - people fear punishment. In the second example, they do it for the greater good.
P: But why should a bunch of self-interested people care about the greater good? By definition, they're only out for themselves.
F: Well, for the safety of their families and friends.
P: Ahh...so people do sacrifice themselves for others.
F: Sometimes.
P: Sometimes. Don't people help out their friends and family? Don't we do things for those we care about without expecting something in return?
F: Yeah.
P: Don't people also donate money to charities? Do volunteer work? Help old ladies across the street? Don't we do things for strangers as well?
F: I suppose we do.
P: Don't people voluntarily live in cities? Is everyone rushing out to live in some shack out in the woods like the Unabomber? What do these bahaviors tell us about ourselves?
F: I'm not sure...
P: To me, when I look around, I certainly see lots of bad things. But I also see lots of endeavors - and some of them very complicated, very intricate - which are dedicated to being and bonding with other human beings. I mean, don't you long to find a man with whom you can not only be physically intimate but also someone to whom you can just talk with, confide in? Just someone to be yourself in front of?
F: Of course. Eveyone wants that, I think.
P: Then, in my opinion, that too is part of our nature. We need relationships of all kinds in our lives in addition to all the wars and greed, etc. Human nature is very complicated and can't be reduced, at least not on a practical level, to mere self-interest. Yet so much of our society is built around that principle.
F: So, where does human nature come from? Our genes?
P: This is where Locke comes back into play. He thought that the human mind was blank at birth - a talba rasa - and thusly people learn everything via their senses. But Locke was wrong. So, yes, it seems that we humans have a built-in nature given to us by our genes. But this doesn't make things any simpler.
F: Why not? Can't we just find out what gene does what?
P: Well, no. But even if we could, what then? There doesn't seem to be a greediness gene or any such thing like that. Except for things like hair color, it seems there are very few one-to-one correlations between genes and various effects. Genes work in concert with one another and it also seems that the environment can trigger them as well.
F: So it's not nature vs. nurture but nature and nurture.
P: Most definitely. Man is neither wholly beastly nor wholly reasonable. We have come out of the womb with quite a lot of instincts already there. We have a halo and a pair of horns.
F: So how are we to deal with the our evil sides? With all the wars and injustices? I mean, if they're part of us just as the kinder, gentler parts of ourselves?
P: I think that part of the issue that we are creatures of proximity.
F: What?
P: I mean our greatest sympathies lie with those closest to us. We are most willing to make sacrifices and give of ourselves to our family and friends and then, as people are further from our lives, the willingness diminishes. Perhaps, from the people in our everyday lives, you might go to your community next - those who lives in close proximity to you. Then your town or city. Then state and your country and so on. Thusly, I think that, if we are to move towards a world that is more peaceful and more just, we must figure out a way to make our societies, our institutions expect people to behave in more cooperative ways and make it reward such behavior. It seems that we expect the worst of people and create mechanisms to react to it rather than those which are proactive in encouraging better behavior.
F: And how do we do that?
P: Good question but I don't have an answer. No social engineer and I. But I think we have enough knowledge now to at least think about the proposition in the proper manner. Do you have any idea who you are yet?
Peter: Honesty Felicia, you don't want to hear the story. It's not very exciting and doesn't make much sense - even to me.
Felicia: Hey, you brought it up.
P: OK, OK. Let me ask you a question: What do you think human nature is?
F: What's this got to do with your story?
P: Quite a bit, actually. I'm trying to make it interesting and give context - humor me.
F: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "human nature"...
P: Well, when a person is born, do you think there's some kind of programming in place? Instincts?
F: I think there's some, yes.
P: Like what?
F: Well, like the instinct to suckle, to recognize the faces of our mother - stuff like that.
P: What about other things that are, perhaps, not related to the absolute necessities in life like nourishment. Do you think people are born with a certain disposition? Exempli gratia, are some white children born to dislike non-whites?
F: No, I think that is something people learn. Like language. No one is born knowing one but they can be taught.
P: So, what you're saying is is that people don't have specific traits built-in but rather that they have the ability to acquire them...?
F: Yeah, I think that's fair to say. I mean, isn't it obvious?
P: Well, you'd think so but it hasn't always been viewed that way.
F: Why not?
P: Take for instance, the premises that our country was founded upon. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by liberalism when they wrote the Constitution...
F: You mean they were liberals?
P: No, I mean they were influenced by classical liberalism which today is closest to libertarianism. And the earliest thinkers who contributed to liberalism were people like Thomas Hobbies, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. They all espoused a variation of social contract theory...
F: You're losing me here. What's this got to do with human nature?
P: Patience, Grasshopper. Anyway, social contract theory is predicated on a certain view of human nature. For Hobbes, this was that men are basically beasts. He refers to the "state of nature" in which the life of men was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In other words, without the structure and authority of society, people's true nature comes out - we'd go around stealing, killing, raping, pillaging and such. Capitalism is similar in that it takes for granted that people work in their own self-interest. Locke and Rousseau had a more positive spin on things. For them, the state of nature was different and more positive: we are naturally reasonable creatures. And so freedom and its preservation were paramount as was the idea that governments are not trustworthy, that the power lies with individuals who are tolerant and reasonable in a state of nature because they pursue a set of natural laws given to use by God. Since everyone is free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions", they need a mechanism - contracts. Thusly the role of government is minimal. It's there merely to maintain freedom and to uphold contracts between free people who enter into them of their own volition and with an understanding of the elements of the exchange and the ramifications. For Locke, a gevernment is not there to encourage specific behaviors via any kind of paternalism. This idea lead to the idea of laissez faire capitalism. Add in some utilitarianism and a world in which people enter into contracts for things which they cannot understand and things get complicated.
F: I understand that - but isn't it true? Don't people look out only for themselves? Don't people take advantage of each other if given the opportunity? History is full of wars, and plots and murders - not only was our country founded upon the ideas of liberalism, but also the genocide of the Native Americans.
P: True, quite true. There's no doubt that people have been, are, and will be extremely cruel to one another. But, is this the only behavior, the only attitude that we are known to exhibit? I mean, have you killed anyone? Do you hate everyone you pass on the street?
F: Well, no, of course not.
P: So, why is that? Why are there countless instances of people not plotting against their neighbors, of people giving their lives in war for their country, and the like?
F: As for your first question - people fear punishment. In the second example, they do it for the greater good.
P: But why should a bunch of self-interested people care about the greater good? By definition, they're only out for themselves.
F: Well, for the safety of their families and friends.
P: Ahh...so people do sacrifice themselves for others.
F: Sometimes.
P: Sometimes. Don't people help out their friends and family? Don't we do things for those we care about without expecting something in return?
F: Yeah.
P: Don't people also donate money to charities? Do volunteer work? Help old ladies across the street? Don't we do things for strangers as well?
F: I suppose we do.
P: Don't people voluntarily live in cities? Is everyone rushing out to live in some shack out in the woods like the Unabomber? What do these bahaviors tell us about ourselves?
F: I'm not sure...
P: To me, when I look around, I certainly see lots of bad things. But I also see lots of endeavors - and some of them very complicated, very intricate - which are dedicated to being and bonding with other human beings. I mean, don't you long to find a man with whom you can not only be physically intimate but also someone to whom you can just talk with, confide in? Just someone to be yourself in front of?
F: Of course. Eveyone wants that, I think.
P: Then, in my opinion, that too is part of our nature. We need relationships of all kinds in our lives in addition to all the wars and greed, etc. Human nature is very complicated and can't be reduced, at least not on a practical level, to mere self-interest. Yet so much of our society is built around that principle.
F: So, where does human nature come from? Our genes?
P: This is where Locke comes back into play. He thought that the human mind was blank at birth - a talba rasa - and thusly people learn everything via their senses. But Locke was wrong. So, yes, it seems that we humans have a built-in nature given to us by our genes. But this doesn't make things any simpler.
F: Why not? Can't we just find out what gene does what?
P: Well, no. But even if we could, what then? There doesn't seem to be a greediness gene or any such thing like that. Except for things like hair color, it seems there are very few one-to-one correlations between genes and various effects. Genes work in concert with one another and it also seems that the environment can trigger them as well.
F: So it's not nature vs. nurture but nature and nurture.
P: Most definitely. Man is neither wholly beastly nor wholly reasonable. We have come out of the womb with quite a lot of instincts already there. We have a halo and a pair of horns.
F: So how are we to deal with the our evil sides? With all the wars and injustices? I mean, if they're part of us just as the kinder, gentler parts of ourselves?
P: I think that part of the issue that we are creatures of proximity.
F: What?
P: I mean our greatest sympathies lie with those closest to us. We are most willing to make sacrifices and give of ourselves to our family and friends and then, as people are further from our lives, the willingness diminishes. Perhaps, from the people in our everyday lives, you might go to your community next - those who lives in close proximity to you. Then your town or city. Then state and your country and so on. Thusly, I think that, if we are to move towards a world that is more peaceful and more just, we must figure out a way to make our societies, our institutions expect people to behave in more cooperative ways and make it reward such behavior. It seems that we expect the worst of people and create mechanisms to react to it rather than those which are proactive in encouraging better behavior.
F: And how do we do that?
P: Good question but I don't have an answer. No social engineer and I. But I think we have enough knowledge now to at least think about the proposition in the proper manner. Do you have any idea who you are yet?
Lover's Leap
I've been so far from here,
Far from your warm arms.
It's good to feel you again,
It's been a long long time, such a long long time.
Hasn't it?
Happy Leap Year!
So far, I've applied for a couple jobs, imbibed not nearly enough coffee, and printed out my resume. I am highly suspicious of any company that only allows for paper applications for an IT position. It just seems...questionable...
It's nice day outside already and is set only to get nicer. I am forced to wonder why I am listening to the song "Futile".
This afternoon brings gaming. We have been absolved from catering and will instead order a za or 3. Paper resume is ready to be mailed. Shit! I forgot to sign it! Well, I can rip open the envelope and rehoolie it later. The Academy Awards are tonight. I'll be missing any parties for the occasion. Besides, these awards don't interest me much. The ones that do were handed out a couple weeks ago - the science and technology ones. Like Henrik Wann Jensen, Stephen R. Marschner and Pat Hanrahan "for their pioneering research in simulating subsurface scattering of light in translucent materials". I guess I'm just more interested in seeing people who get rewarded for their work as opposed to some popularity contest. Yeah, that's not totally fair but, to me, best actors and actresses don't interest me. The people who innovate robotic cranes for camera to make beautiful and interesting mise en scene do. Best picture doesn't interest me either but the guy who invented the system to control all those computer-generated urakai does. Whether or not Return of the King wins doesn't mean much to me - I love the movie already. But I am keen on finding out about the newest techonologies and advancements which are going to aid, abet, and/or innovate cinema. At least those folks got to have that little hottie, Jennifer Garner, emcee the proceedings even if virtually no one gave a shit.
Far from your warm arms.
It's good to feel you again,
It's been a long long time, such a long long time.
Hasn't it?
So far, I've applied for a couple jobs, imbibed not nearly enough coffee, and printed out my resume. I am highly suspicious of any company that only allows for paper applications for an IT position. It just seems...questionable...
It's nice day outside already and is set only to get nicer. I am forced to wonder why I am listening to the song "Futile".
This afternoon brings gaming. We have been absolved from catering and will instead order a za or 3. Paper resume is ready to be mailed. Shit! I forgot to sign it! Well, I can rip open the envelope and rehoolie it later. The Academy Awards are tonight. I'll be missing any parties for the occasion. Besides, these awards don't interest me much. The ones that do were handed out a couple weeks ago - the science and technology ones. Like Henrik Wann Jensen, Stephen R. Marschner and Pat Hanrahan "for their pioneering research in simulating subsurface scattering of light in translucent materials". I guess I'm just more interested in seeing people who get rewarded for their work as opposed to some popularity contest. Yeah, that's not totally fair but, to me, best actors and actresses don't interest me. The people who innovate robotic cranes for camera to make beautiful and interesting mise en scene do. Best picture doesn't interest me either but the guy who invented the system to control all those computer-generated urakai does. Whether or not Return of the King wins doesn't mean much to me - I love the movie already. But I am keen on finding out about the newest techonologies and advancements which are going to aid, abet, and/or innovate cinema. At least those folks got to have that little hottie, Jennifer Garner, emcee the proceedings even if virtually no one gave a shit.
28 February, 2004
Oooh, Loneliness and Ben & Jerry's Is a Bad Mix
Oh
my
God
I just ate an entire pint of Ben & Jerry's New York Chunk Heart Stopper. I feel so bloated - like a corpse. At least I'm not hungry anymore. And I've calmed down too. I went to a woman's house to help her with her computer and what, was described to me as a 10 minute gig turned in 4.5 hours which saw me driving back and forth between a house and a business. She said she just needed to know how to move her Quickbooks data between computers. Then I have to teach her how to burn CDs, how to register Quickbooks, and how to use this absolutely horrid service that Intuit pushes called Remote Access. What a piece of crap. But I installed it anyway because she's gonna have to call back.
On the upside, it was some decent cash and I got to draw with crayons along with one of her daughters who was extremely cute. She had two of them, actually - 2 and 3 years old, respectively - and they were both so cute! I was just standing there when one of the girls grabbed my thumb and led me a sheet of paper on the floor with a purple crayon lying next to it. So I sat down on floor and did my best to help fill in a big face before continuing with getting the PC working as it should.
Anyway, I got home much later than I expected so I've missed my chance to play trivia at Neil's Diamond. So I've stuffed myself and have completely lost my train of thought.
I think I may puke now...
Oh
my
God
I just ate an entire pint of Ben & Jerry's New York Chunk Heart Stopper. I feel so bloated - like a corpse. At least I'm not hungry anymore. And I've calmed down too. I went to a woman's house to help her with her computer and what, was described to me as a 10 minute gig turned in 4.5 hours which saw me driving back and forth between a house and a business. She said she just needed to know how to move her Quickbooks data between computers. Then I have to teach her how to burn CDs, how to register Quickbooks, and how to use this absolutely horrid service that Intuit pushes called Remote Access. What a piece of crap. But I installed it anyway because she's gonna have to call back.
On the upside, it was some decent cash and I got to draw with crayons along with one of her daughters who was extremely cute. She had two of them, actually - 2 and 3 years old, respectively - and they were both so cute! I was just standing there when one of the girls grabbed my thumb and led me a sheet of paper on the floor with a purple crayon lying next to it. So I sat down on floor and did my best to help fill in a big face before continuing with getting the PC working as it should.
Anyway, I got home much later than I expected so I've missed my chance to play trivia at Neil's Diamond. So I've stuffed myself and have completely lost my train of thought.
I think I may puke now...
27 February, 2004
Hrothgar's Hall
Along the forest path he roams to Hrothgar's hall so clear
He knows that victory is secured, his charm will testify
His claws will drip with mortal blood as moonbeams haunt the sky
I've been watching some episodes concerning Bushy, Iraq, and our foreign policy. One profiled Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow hawks such as Rummy and Cheney. I didn't know that Wolfowitz was the latest Hank Kissinger. Now I'm watching a look at whether or not the U.S. was prepared for the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq. What a clusterfuck. I can only wonder which country we'll invade next.
I think I know what's gonna happen next. Whenever I digest multiple exposes on corruption, greed, war, and so on, I go on a mean lefty streak. Usually this involves, amongst other things, is lighting the fires of various people and starting debates. Not a good way to make friends. A good way to lose some too.
States of Mind
Right now, I am intensely pissed off. Aside from any stupid drama in my own life, I have watched a few documentaries that really got under my craw. All the bureaucratic bullshit that prevented US intelligence from preventing 9/11, the crooked politicians, all the people out there getting screwed over by large corporations that do nothing but piss down our backs and tell us it's raining...I just want to punch some CEO out right how! And the majority of Congress too! And the executive branch and the judicial branch...It seems like the American populace is majestic in their stupidity.
Well, I finally got word on the job:
"The position was filled with another external applicant."
That settles that matter, at least. I am also awaiting word from another contracting company. I can only presume more bad news awaits me...signing off..
Well, I finally got word on the job:
That settles that matter, at least. I am also awaiting word from another contracting company. I can only presume more bad news awaits me...signing off..
Coffee, I Love Thee - Let Me Count the Ways
OK. I'm watching this documentary about alternative medicine and it's very interesting. Then comes the scene where a doctor at some alternative hospital/clinic hoolie tells a man with pancreatic cancer that he'll need to give himself 4 coffee enemas daily with organic coffee. And the doctor says that he's been doing it for like 20 years. Coffee - is there anything it can't do?
Can I Be Late For My Cinema Show?
I spent last night watching Frontline which had a documentary about the war in Iraq. Very interesting stuff. So, I went up to pbs.org to do some reading and learn more about the program and its subject. While there, I noticed that they have some episodes archived and you can watch them online. So I watched the show called "American Porn" as a friend had seen it and told me about it. While it was interesting, it didn't tell me too much that I didn't know already. But, like I said, it was interesting to see the interviews with the makers of porn. Unfortunately, it was only an hour long and left a lot unexplored and didn't go very deeply into some of the questions it raised. Now I'm watching an episode about American children, ADHD, Ritalin, etc. I've ranted about this before so I won't go into it again but I will say how crappy Real One is. Regardless of what you have to say of Windows and Microsoft generally, Windows Media streams a lot better than Real Player. Ooh! There's an episode on alternative medicine. Considering I just finished reading a book on Chinese medicine, this seems appropriate. Of course, I'm having problems with the high quality setting. I do have a cable modem - why can I not get video? Cold boot, I guess.
I am seriously considering going to see The Passion of the Christ this afternoon. It's being shown on the Ultrascreen on the other side of town. An Ultrascreen is 3 stories tall and slightly-curved. (Technically the screen is 32' tall by 75' wide - that's 9.75 by 22.86 meters - with 8,000 watts of six-channel Dolby Digital and Dolby Surround EX sound, THX certified sound, and a picture illuminated by 7,500 watts of light.) So I can see your savior and mine suffer in mega-huge graphic glory and super-surround digital sound. I don't know about you, but I love sitting right up front at the cinema. I enjoy being engulfed by the image and having to turn my head to see the entire frame. I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey there on the Ultrascreen - probably the closest I'll ever get in my life to seeing the film in its native Cinerama format. For me, it was a liturgy. It was so fucking intense - I just got lost - and that tears welled in my eyes on a couple occasions. I'm sorry but watching these apes doing their thing while being surrounded by a massive chorus wailing loudly enough to vibrate my entire body just gets to me.
After having read reviews by Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott, I am looking forward to an intense, emotional roller coaster ride. I want it to move me in one way or another. I have a 52" television which makes watching DVDs, for me, a better experience than watching it on my 32" TV. But the cinema has a special power. It has the potential to move me in a unique way, a way that only sitting in a seat and being dwarfed by and immersed in a film can.
I am seriously considering going to see The Passion of the Christ this afternoon. It's being shown on the Ultrascreen on the other side of town. An Ultrascreen is 3 stories tall and slightly-curved. (Technically the screen is 32' tall by 75' wide - that's 9.75 by 22.86 meters - with 8,000 watts of six-channel Dolby Digital and Dolby Surround EX sound, THX certified sound, and a picture illuminated by 7,500 watts of light.) So I can see your savior and mine suffer in mega-huge graphic glory and super-surround digital sound. I don't know about you, but I love sitting right up front at the cinema. I enjoy being engulfed by the image and having to turn my head to see the entire frame. I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey there on the Ultrascreen - probably the closest I'll ever get in my life to seeing the film in its native Cinerama format. For me, it was a liturgy. It was so fucking intense - I just got lost - and that tears welled in my eyes on a couple occasions. I'm sorry but watching these apes doing their thing while being surrounded by a massive chorus wailing loudly enough to vibrate my entire body just gets to me.
After having read reviews by Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott, I am looking forward to an intense, emotional roller coaster ride. I want it to move me in one way or another. I have a 52" television which makes watching DVDs, for me, a better experience than watching it on my 32" TV. But the cinema has a special power. It has the potential to move me in a unique way, a way that only sitting in a seat and being dwarfed by and immersed in a film can.
26 February, 2004
Woe Betide My Johns0n
Jesus! I thought I was watching PBS when I was assailed by multiple sorties of commercials so I punched the clicker to put on PBS and found that I was in fact already watching it. I feel old now because I can remember the days when there were no commercials on PBS. Unfortunately it's a boring night on Wisconsin Public Television as some Antiques Roadshow-like program is next rather than anything substantial. Well, I guess I'll watch C-SPAN as they're showing the lying, er, testimonies of various CEOs of media conglomerates before some Congressional decency council or other. There's Mr. Hogan - Howard Stern's boss - kissing major Congressional ass. It's sort of funny to see him acquiescing to a representative from Michigan in a low-angle shot. Again, the cinephile in me comes out. Mr. Hogan, no doubt, is extremely wealthy - he must be a multimillionaire several times over - and can there be much doubt that, as he and his company got rich, that they didn't think twice about the vulgar crap they put on the airwaves? Oh man! Fox's Entertainment President is there too. She is committing perjury! (OK, she's just lying.) She is sitting there feigning that she gives a flying fuck about quality programming, that she cares about any standards of decency. It's now a parade of we-will-take-it-into-serious-consideration's. My TV is absolutely bleeding sycophancy.
Here's a great subject line: "beef up the size of your johns0n!"
Here's a great subject line: "beef up the size of your johns0n!"
23 February, 2004
The Conversation Continues
P: ...It's huge - bigger than anything here on Earth.
F: OK.
P: Now imagine that it is surrounded by landscape on all sides of varying types. One area is a desert, another a tundra, another a temperate clime, and so on.
F: Are you saying life is like the weather?
P: No, no. So you've got this terrain - this mountain and the areas at its base. Now, the top of the mountain is the goal - happiness. And paths of various types lead up the side of the mountain.
F: Alright, I can picture this mountain of yours.
P: You have people living in the various areas. They do what everyone does: eat, sleep, dream, do the nasty...and seek happiness. So they all want to reach the summit of that mountain but, in order to do so, they must first traverse the land in which they live. Desert people must roam across vast stretches of sand and contend with drought; people living in cold areas must trudge through snow and struggle to keep themselves warm and so forth. And this only gets them to base of the mountain. From there, they must make the difficult, hazardous climb up to the top.
F: Big whoop. So people each have their own way of finding happiness...
P: Yeah, it's kind of lousy analogy, isn't it? Look at what it does illustrate: people find happiness in different ways as their lives are unique in many ways - life in the forest is different than life in the desert. But there's similarity too as everyone has to climb the mountain. And climbing the mountain - finding happiness - is not easy, it's a struggle. As Aristotle said, happiness comes through "study and care" and not by chance.
F: I thought you said that those books didn't help...?
P: Well, hindsight is 20/20. Besides, quoting Aristotle is a good way to fool people into thinking you're smart.
F: Look, I see what you're saying but it doesn't really help me. It doesn't tell me how to be happy - just some allegory about how hard it is for people to find happiness. I still feel that there really is no purpose to live. I think all living organisms on this planet have it built into them the need to survive and copulate no matter what. So as humans we've created religion, destiny, need, desire, wealth, and all these other things that are supposed to give reason to life. But at times I'm aware that whether or not any of my dreams are fulfilled is irrelevant in the scheme of things. They're just there to give my brain something to focus on so I keep existing.
P: Felicia, either you've missed my point or I haven't made it very well. Remember what I said about my having read all those books and not finding an answer? I can't give you an answer - only way to think about things because, as with the mountain, finding happiness is not exactly the same for everyone. And think about what you just told me. What is this "scheme of things"? Do you really care if you end up in some history book? And do you honestly believe that needs and desires are just things people invented thousands of years ago?
F: Well, no, but they're just byproducts, they're ways of finding a mate. It's our genes' way of getting the best possible person to have offspring with.
P: In a certain sense, I agree with you. But I think what you're doing is confusing what are called proximate and ultimate causes. Your genes aren't doing these cost-beneift analyses like Alan Greenspan inside of your body. Saying that such things are the result of our genes selecting this over that is misleading. Our genes "do" such things or have that behavior only when viewed in the grand scheme of things, as you like to say, over a long, long period of time. Our passions, our needs and desires - they're real and they're genuine and they're immediate. Your genes and mine, they don't sit around plotting Machiavellian schemes. Instead you and I, we sit around thinking about love, friendship, and so on.
F: So...
P: Someone once said that those who care about legislation and sausages should not see them being made. The same goes for our emotions. While amoral and uncaring genes may ultimately be responsible for things, it is the proximate, the nearer causes that concern us. "What can I do to make myself happy?", "Who can I love?", and the like.
F: So you're saying that the things that are important to me are that way because they're important to me.
P: Hey, nice tautology! Yes, that's what I'm saying. Your passions and desires are important because they're what colors your life, gives it meaning, and makes you happy.
F: So, what happened to you? What happened after you read all those philosophers and got nothing out of them?
P: Oh, it's a boring story and I don't want to bore you.
F: Bore me.
F: OK.
P: Now imagine that it is surrounded by landscape on all sides of varying types. One area is a desert, another a tundra, another a temperate clime, and so on.
F: Are you saying life is like the weather?
P: No, no. So you've got this terrain - this mountain and the areas at its base. Now, the top of the mountain is the goal - happiness. And paths of various types lead up the side of the mountain.
F: Alright, I can picture this mountain of yours.
P: You have people living in the various areas. They do what everyone does: eat, sleep, dream, do the nasty...and seek happiness. So they all want to reach the summit of that mountain but, in order to do so, they must first traverse the land in which they live. Desert people must roam across vast stretches of sand and contend with drought; people living in cold areas must trudge through snow and struggle to keep themselves warm and so forth. And this only gets them to base of the mountain. From there, they must make the difficult, hazardous climb up to the top.
F: Big whoop. So people each have their own way of finding happiness...
P: Yeah, it's kind of lousy analogy, isn't it? Look at what it does illustrate: people find happiness in different ways as their lives are unique in many ways - life in the forest is different than life in the desert. But there's similarity too as everyone has to climb the mountain. And climbing the mountain - finding happiness - is not easy, it's a struggle. As Aristotle said, happiness comes through "study and care" and not by chance.
F: I thought you said that those books didn't help...?
P: Well, hindsight is 20/20. Besides, quoting Aristotle is a good way to fool people into thinking you're smart.
F: Look, I see what you're saying but it doesn't really help me. It doesn't tell me how to be happy - just some allegory about how hard it is for people to find happiness. I still feel that there really is no purpose to live. I think all living organisms on this planet have it built into them the need to survive and copulate no matter what. So as humans we've created religion, destiny, need, desire, wealth, and all these other things that are supposed to give reason to life. But at times I'm aware that whether or not any of my dreams are fulfilled is irrelevant in the scheme of things. They're just there to give my brain something to focus on so I keep existing.
P: Felicia, either you've missed my point or I haven't made it very well. Remember what I said about my having read all those books and not finding an answer? I can't give you an answer - only way to think about things because, as with the mountain, finding happiness is not exactly the same for everyone. And think about what you just told me. What is this "scheme of things"? Do you really care if you end up in some history book? And do you honestly believe that needs and desires are just things people invented thousands of years ago?
F: Well, no, but they're just byproducts, they're ways of finding a mate. It's our genes' way of getting the best possible person to have offspring with.
P: In a certain sense, I agree with you. But I think what you're doing is confusing what are called proximate and ultimate causes. Your genes aren't doing these cost-beneift analyses like Alan Greenspan inside of your body. Saying that such things are the result of our genes selecting this over that is misleading. Our genes "do" such things or have that behavior only when viewed in the grand scheme of things, as you like to say, over a long, long period of time. Our passions, our needs and desires - they're real and they're genuine and they're immediate. Your genes and mine, they don't sit around plotting Machiavellian schemes. Instead you and I, we sit around thinking about love, friendship, and so on.
F: So...
P: Someone once said that those who care about legislation and sausages should not see them being made. The same goes for our emotions. While amoral and uncaring genes may ultimately be responsible for things, it is the proximate, the nearer causes that concern us. "What can I do to make myself happy?", "Who can I love?", and the like.
F: So you're saying that the things that are important to me are that way because they're important to me.
P: Hey, nice tautology! Yes, that's what I'm saying. Your passions and desires are important because they're what colors your life, gives it meaning, and makes you happy.
F: So, what happened to you? What happened after you read all those philosophers and got nothing out of them?
P: Oh, it's a boring story and I don't want to bore you.
F: Bore me.
A Conversation
It is a cold, dark night. Peter sits at home alone reading a book when he hears a knock at the door.
Peter: Felicia? Come in! Come in! You're shivering!
Felicia: Thank you. Brrr...
P: What are you doing out wandering at this late hour?
F: I went out for a walk so I could think a little and try to clear my head. It didn't work and I realized I was in your neighborhood so I decided to stop in and talk to you. I'm not bugging you, am I?
P: Of course not! Here, let me take your coat. Please, sit down by the fire and warm yourself.
F: Thank you.
P: Now, what was it you wished to speak to me about?
F: I...I need to know the answer to a question.
P: What question is that?
F: "Who am I?"
P: Why you're Felicia, of course.
F: I know, but who is Felicia?
P: Are you OK, my dear?
F: Sometimes...sometimes I need someone to tell all my secrets to and not be judged. But I suppose they're too dull and boring to confess to you. I'm sorry, I don't want to bore you. I should go...
P: No, no - don't be silly. What's wrong?
F: I don't know. I just feel like...like I don't know what to feel. Nothing in my life seems to be going right. A mediocre job. I want to go to college but can't. And I feel so alone, at times. I want to be learning, to be living and to have someone hold me when I need that too. I'm tired of a dull life and having no purpose. I'm tired of thinking too much. I'm tired of wanting things I'm not really sure I want. I want adventure and someone to share it with.
P: Ah...I think I am beginning to understand your dilemma - a bout with existential angst. Are you going to ask me what the meaning of life is next?
F: Ha ha. But tell me the meaning of life anyway. I think I'm beyond all help.
P: Now, don't say that. Let me try and answer the easy question first.
F: Which one? Why my life is so dull?
P: No, the meaning of life.
F: Jesus, if you think that one's easy...
P: You know, I once felt as you do.
F: Really?
P: Of course! Everyone asks big questions. Everyone feels that way at some time.
F: Well how did you get over it?
P: I don't know - it just happened of its own accord.
F: How?
P: If I remember correctly, the first thing I did was to read various things written by philosophers and bits from the texts of the great religions - Plato, Kierkegaard, Descartes, Chuang Tzu, the Bible...
F: Did they help?
P: No, not one bit. I didn't read them correctly, you see.
F: What do you mean?
P: Have you ever seen a commerical for a movie and thought that it looked good? And then you pay your money to see it and it's nothing like the commercial? And you didn't like it at all?
F: Yes - more times than I can count.
P: Think of it that way then. All those great thinkers and all those ideas - none of them seemed to speak to me and my life. They just seemed to give me more questions to ask. I read them expecting to be presented with answers that I could then use. But there were none. Only ideas - ways to look at the problems. Men and women have been asking the same questions since time immemorial yet there's no right answer.
F: Oh, I feel muuuch better now.
P: Well, you haven't let me finish, Ms. Sarcasm. I suppose if you believe in a god then the meaning of life is laid out before you because you'll have some text to tell you what it is and you are left to merely follow a prescribed course. So for a Christian, let's say, the meaning of life is to get into Heaven. Thusly, Christians try to live lives according the standards of good delineated in the Bible so they can pass through the pearly gates with a clean bill of spiritual health from Saint Peter.
F: But I thought you were an atheist...?
P: I am.
F: So...I don't understand.
P: I was asking the wrong question. The question "Why don't monkeys fly out of my butt?" is legitimate only if monkeys do that, if they have the property of flying and flying out of the anuses of their fellow simians.
F: Now you're getting gross.
P: Sorry. But it's one of those phrases I find funny and captures the essence of my point. Monkey don't do that sort of thing so the question is irrelevant. There is no meaning to life because this presupposes a being that created life with some plan in mind that is opaque to we mortals and that this being expects us to puzzle it out. Asking what the meaning of life is assumes that there is a meaning to be had. But why must there be one? How can there be one if there is no supernatural entity, no external force to give meaning?
F: I think I see what you're saying...
P: The question shouldn't be "What is the meaning to life?" but rather "How can I give my life meaning?" or "How can I be happy?".
F: Alright. I see what you're getting at. So, when you figured out that you were asking the wrong question, did you find happiness?
P: Oh, heavens no.
F: So even if I change the question, I still won't feel happy. How can I be happy?
P: Now, that is a very tough question. When I started asking the right questions, it was just a beginning. But I didn't look under my nose. That came later. Now, imagine a very tall mountain...
Peter: Felicia? Come in! Come in! You're shivering!
Felicia: Thank you. Brrr...
P: What are you doing out wandering at this late hour?
F: I went out for a walk so I could think a little and try to clear my head. It didn't work and I realized I was in your neighborhood so I decided to stop in and talk to you. I'm not bugging you, am I?
P: Of course not! Here, let me take your coat. Please, sit down by the fire and warm yourself.
F: Thank you.
P: Now, what was it you wished to speak to me about?
F: I...I need to know the answer to a question.
P: What question is that?
F: "Who am I?"
P: Why you're Felicia, of course.
F: I know, but who is Felicia?
P: Are you OK, my dear?
F: Sometimes...sometimes I need someone to tell all my secrets to and not be judged. But I suppose they're too dull and boring to confess to you. I'm sorry, I don't want to bore you. I should go...
P: No, no - don't be silly. What's wrong?
F: I don't know. I just feel like...like I don't know what to feel. Nothing in my life seems to be going right. A mediocre job. I want to go to college but can't. And I feel so alone, at times. I want to be learning, to be living and to have someone hold me when I need that too. I'm tired of a dull life and having no purpose. I'm tired of thinking too much. I'm tired of wanting things I'm not really sure I want. I want adventure and someone to share it with.
P: Ah...I think I am beginning to understand your dilemma - a bout with existential angst. Are you going to ask me what the meaning of life is next?
F: Ha ha. But tell me the meaning of life anyway. I think I'm beyond all help.
P: Now, don't say that. Let me try and answer the easy question first.
F: Which one? Why my life is so dull?
P: No, the meaning of life.
F: Jesus, if you think that one's easy...
P: You know, I once felt as you do.
F: Really?
P: Of course! Everyone asks big questions. Everyone feels that way at some time.
F: Well how did you get over it?
P: I don't know - it just happened of its own accord.
F: How?
P: If I remember correctly, the first thing I did was to read various things written by philosophers and bits from the texts of the great religions - Plato, Kierkegaard, Descartes, Chuang Tzu, the Bible...
F: Did they help?
P: No, not one bit. I didn't read them correctly, you see.
F: What do you mean?
P: Have you ever seen a commerical for a movie and thought that it looked good? And then you pay your money to see it and it's nothing like the commercial? And you didn't like it at all?
F: Yes - more times than I can count.
P: Think of it that way then. All those great thinkers and all those ideas - none of them seemed to speak to me and my life. They just seemed to give me more questions to ask. I read them expecting to be presented with answers that I could then use. But there were none. Only ideas - ways to look at the problems. Men and women have been asking the same questions since time immemorial yet there's no right answer.
F: Oh, I feel muuuch better now.
P: Well, you haven't let me finish, Ms. Sarcasm. I suppose if you believe in a god then the meaning of life is laid out before you because you'll have some text to tell you what it is and you are left to merely follow a prescribed course. So for a Christian, let's say, the meaning of life is to get into Heaven. Thusly, Christians try to live lives according the standards of good delineated in the Bible so they can pass through the pearly gates with a clean bill of spiritual health from Saint Peter.
F: But I thought you were an atheist...?
P: I am.
F: So...I don't understand.
P: I was asking the wrong question. The question "Why don't monkeys fly out of my butt?" is legitimate only if monkeys do that, if they have the property of flying and flying out of the anuses of their fellow simians.
F: Now you're getting gross.
P: Sorry. But it's one of those phrases I find funny and captures the essence of my point. Monkey don't do that sort of thing so the question is irrelevant. There is no meaning to life because this presupposes a being that created life with some plan in mind that is opaque to we mortals and that this being expects us to puzzle it out. Asking what the meaning of life is assumes that there is a meaning to be had. But why must there be one? How can there be one if there is no supernatural entity, no external force to give meaning?
F: I think I see what you're saying...
P: The question shouldn't be "What is the meaning to life?" but rather "How can I give my life meaning?" or "How can I be happy?".
F: Alright. I see what you're getting at. So, when you figured out that you were asking the wrong question, did you find happiness?
P: Oh, heavens no.
F: So even if I change the question, I still won't feel happy. How can I be happy?
P: Now, that is a very tough question. When I started asking the right questions, it was just a beginning. But I didn't look under my nose. That came later. Now, imagine a very tall mountain...
Partial Oneiric Recollection
I had this dream last night which, upon waking, put me in an odd mood. Rather grumpy, truth be known.
I was at a school Don't remember if I was a student or a teacher or what. In the dream, I am traversing the halls, wandering through classes and an ex-girlfriend keeps coming up to me asking to have some of my time to talk. For some reason, I think she was trying to sell something as she was carring a box around with her. And, each time she approaches me, I tell her to fuck off and leave me alone. Just when I think I've lost her or she's given up, she returns, she keeps pestering me...
I was at a school Don't remember if I was a student or a teacher or what. In the dream, I am traversing the halls, wandering through classes and an ex-girlfriend keeps coming up to me asking to have some of my time to talk. For some reason, I think she was trying to sell something as she was carring a box around with her. And, each time she approaches me, I tell her to fuck off and leave me alone. Just when I think I've lost her or she's given up, she returns, she keeps pestering me...
20 February, 2004
Am I Naughty or Nice?
OK. Change for tollway. Check. Address and phone # of recruiter. Check. Cell phone? Check. Favorite tie (medieval manuscript with illumination)? Check. Pocket watch? Check. Is it wound? Check. Car fueled? Check. Crappy rainy weather to turn to snow and ice? Check.
Everyone who requested a CD - hang tight. I'll get around to them as soon as I can. Ditto for cookies.
Now where is my umbrella...?
Everyone who requested a CD - hang tight. I'll get around to them as soon as I can. Ditto for cookies.
Now where is my umbrella...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)