Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

I wrote this as an exercise in self exploration and have been butchering it to put in different profiles.  Enjoy: 

Does the turbulence ever upset you?

Life is a bumpy ride and I’m one cantankerous passenger.

I am thinker, leader, ranter, writer, actor. I am not interested in the status quo, I am interested in making things better. I struggle with the definition of normality, but what I know for sure that is it should not be complacency, laziness, or ignorance. I despise those who do not understand this. Individualism is being lost in a sea of selfish hedonism and the irony is almost too much to handle at times.

I have strong views which I enjoy sharing with anyone who will listen, but I do not believe on forcing those views on anyone. One of the best things in life is a good conversation. Or maybe a good debate. I am highly empathetic and other’s emotions can bowl me over like a steam roller. There are very few characteristics I appreciate more than a person who thinks.

I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal philosophical punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. I hate stereotypes. I think people can and should be judged as individuals.

I have been told in the past that I am “brutally honest.” I do not know if I agree with that, but I aim to be honest and straight forward. No time in life for playing games with people or being passive-aggressive. To that end, I can come off as arrogant and a know-it-all. I always have an answer and I am frustratingly right most of the time. I try to remember those can be bad things (but generally fail).

I’m a tech geek and a fantasy dork. I love technology in real life and play with it often. I love fantasy in my mindless reading and like to quietly pretend I would enjoy the life of a medieval assassin.

I typically dislike sports, but I discovered I really enjoy hockey. Not because there is fighting (there is not as much as you think). Not because it is brutal (it is not as brutal as you think it is). I enjoy hockey because it is: fast, highly skilled, and the true embodiment of a team effort. And, yeah, there is fighting and it is brutal.

I work, and work hard, but there is more to life than work. I play hockey. I have performed in a regular-running “Whose line is it anyways?” style improv show. I have a blog that I have been writing on for longer than some people have used the internet. I have owned my own business. I read more books on philosophy and religion than is probably healthy.

I find that the best way to approach life is a combination of humor, honesty, passion, just-enough-cynicism, and a level of intellectual analysis that would cause a psychologist to blush.

Are you ready to think?

How I hate thee. Let me count the ways.

Well, before I do that, let me take a moment to explain. I think it has been a while.

I am not the type of person who gets the typical holiday blues (well, typical for those who get it). Honestly, I couldn’t quite tell you what the “typical” holiday blues are, but I imagine they have something to do with a lot of alcohol, shouting obscenities late at night, a black eye, and probably some jail time. My assumption is that a lot of people are really just unhappy and the holidays just give them that extra nudge over the precipice.

For me, the “holidays” represent a lot of things that I do not really like about people and society. I mean, really, are you telling me that we have to take a moment each year and say “Hey, maybe you should be nice?” Joy to the world and all that sham. I guess it’s much easier to be amenable to sitting next to the fire and not fighting when it is freezing outside. The point is that there are many supposed ideals which are highlighted at this time that I believe if people took truly to heart would be things that they believed in, well, all the time. I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with taking a moment to highlight certain things to get people thinking about them, but I really feel a lot of the marketed holidays are just shams.

Maybe it’s the consumerism associated with them. The gift giving just makes me sick. It is not that I am against giving gifts. I love giving gifts. The issue for me is being told / expected to give gifts. I can no longer count the number of times that throughout the year, I have given someone a gift because I genuinely wanted to (“Hey, you did something to remind me what a great friend you are and I wanted to say thanks”, “Hey, I found [X] which I though you would really like and here it is!”, etc.) but failed to do so at an alloted time and had an eye of ire turned on me. Not cool.

I was talking with a friend about this who noted that some people feel uncomfortable with getting gifts at unexpected times–it is easier to give them at expected times because people understand how to deal with it. I guess. The problem, in my mind, is that this highlights a bigger problem with our society at large. One of the things also discussed in our conversation is that people also feel the need to reciprocate, especially for unexpected gifts. I do not know if I agree with that, but if it is the case, I think with time individual people can learn to deal with individual gifts. Especially if you make it clear that there is not an expectation of return. But, in my mind, you can generally point to something and say “Hey, THAT’s why I am giving you the gift. Don’t give me anything back. DEAL.” If they truly feel like they have to give you something back then, well, be thankful as well.

Those who have followed my ramblings over the years know that I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal psychological punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. Honestly, do not get me started on stereotypes.

Yet, another area where I find general fault with the slice of humanity I interact with (whether in person, in writing, or in observation) is the ideas of optimism and pessimism. I like to think of myself as a realist–I try my best to think of things as not the best or worst case scenarios. I, like anyone, cannot be perfect in this (but, perfection is just another black/white extreme, in my opinion). However, I am amazingly confronted by people who will label an action or a thought of mine as “optimistic” or “pessimistic” because it does not fit with a particular outcome or the personal view of the other person.

For example, if someone has a better expectation for the outcome of a situation and I take a moment to think about alternative outcomes, I have been told that I should not be pessimistic. Often, I get really taken back because I do not feel like I am being pessimistic, I am just trying to make sure I have a realistic expectation. When I sit down to think more about, I can generally think of ways that I could be truly pessimistic. This happens the other way too (“Oh, you’re just an optimist”). If I were to believe what people say in these situations, I would have to assume I am either manic-depressive or absolutely insane. I do not believe I am either of those things, so I assume there are other answers.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideas of optimism and pessimism. As technical terms, these words have some very specific meanings which in the usage in common vernacular seems to have oversimplified. In the study of religion, a religion or group which is identified as pessimistic does not believe that life is kind of crappy and people are pretty mean. It means that the religion identifies the world as a truly evil place, where the hearts of men are black by nature, and only by the intervention of a divine being–perhaps even the physical destruction of the world and people–can redemption can be had. You can assume something as similarly opposite for optimism.

Psychologically, this term also has a technical meaning–a pessimist is a person who truly believes in the worst. When one meets a true pessimist, one knows. These people are truly draining and truly unable to deal with the world–and truly rare. But I guess it is easier to say that someone who is depressed or generally surly is a “pessimist.”

What I am trying to figure out is if these are appropriate in relation to specific situations? Can someone be pessimistic about, say, their relationship but be optimistic, say, about their job? It seems like an easy thing to do right? Someone does not see something in the brightest of lights and so you say “Hey, don’t be such an pessimist!” Here is my problem, though. I think at some level, pessimism (or optimism) does have a meaning to people and it can influence how one interprets actions or situations. I think there is a difference between being “negative” and being a “pessimist.”

Moreover, I think there is a difference between those and beings realistic. “This might not work” (realism) is different than “this won’t work” (negative) is different than “this can never work” (pessimism). I worry that when “this might not work” is heard as “this can never work” because the listener equates anything which can be interpreted as negative with pessimism.

…just be good?

Even though I’ve studied it quite a bit, I have never understood why people argue that morals cannot be exclusive from a god / religion / whatever. The same-old “atheists have no morals” rhetoric.

Perhaps it is because those who express these feelings cannot control themselves?

I have to admit that the idea of people who cannot control themselves or urges being a part of something that gives enough structure to control those urges has great appeal to me… because hopefully those urges will be controlled. But I really feel that it needs to be something: a) substantative and b) not as bad or worse than the “urge.”

Also, one of the biggest problems is that the people who DO successful commit to something which makes their lives better or “beats the urge,” then often they try to push this on other people and/or when faces with an argument against the belief, they react poorly or violently. This is because the belief is more important in it’s ability to defeat the urge than in and of itself.

Take, for example, religion as the belief in this role. I’ve had great conversations with people who do not share the same religious beliefs as myself. Take, as another example, my doctor. My doctor is a very devout Christian and we have had very good discussions about religion. I don’t trust my life any less to him (…i hope) and we can have a very rational, friendly dialogue. But this is not always the case.

It is my theory that one of the greatest things in the way of pluralistic dialogue is the fact that many individuals belief is not based on the belief, in and of itself, but other factors, such as the belief acting as an agent against an urge or that “this is what the family believes so it’s what I believe.” The biggest problem with this is that when faced with challenges to the belief, even in casual dialogue, it’s hard for an individual to face disparate arguments.

It’s important to understand this. There are some people who you can be frank and open with, some you need to be more careful in how things are worded, and some who conversation may simply not be possible

I am going to file this under “What the hell?”

http://www.kctv5.com/news/14034556/detail.html

A small bookstore in Kansas City burned thousands of books. The primary reason for this seems to be that they simply have too many books and people will not take them. However, the owner has been quoted as saying the wants to talk about the declining in reading.

“We hope to spark a conversation about the importance of books in the
face of a marked shrinking in reading trends, and staggering waste
streams of actual books,” said Prospero’s Books owner, Tom Wayne.

I have to admit that I am torn on the idea of declining readership. I will not argue that people are reading less and that this is being supplanted by other forms of media (video, music, TV, etc). What I am not convinced of is that the internet and technology is part of that. If you want to talk about how the children don’t know a good story because they only have enough attention to watch an ad on TV, I’m with ya. Do not even get me started on the quality of a lot of the media out there. But looking all the forms of media (if you were include books in this category), I just think there are more forms of literary competition for books (take for example, a complete shot in the dark, blogs and blog readership).

I’m a old-fashioned reader in these enlightened days. I like to take a good book and a warm drink and snuggle up until I fall asleep. Hell, I have a reading chair. I cannot soak my stories in over the dull refresh rate of a monitor (much to the anger of my wife when she’s trying to get me to read a story she’s written). But I am not going to be so dense as to suggest that it’s not possible or worthwhile to get quality online or in digital form. I know many people who do their reading online and, well, more power to them.

Another important fact is that, in whatever form you are talking about, there is a lot.. a LOT.. of crap. And there are a lot of crap books. Whether we’re talking about the latest serial romance novel (Does my bias on things ever show through?) or the latest “how to feed your employees cheese and make money!” book. So just because I’m not reading your crap book does not mean I’m not reading.

I just have a hard time believing that we are in the dark days of literacy. I find it more likely that things are general the same as they’ve been. The intellectual elite read. Those who are interested read. The “masses,” in whatever their form, find easy and simple ways to be entertained, which may or may not involve reading. Some people just do not want to read.

I’m not going to say which class I fall into, but suffice to say I’ve a story about an assassin and his pet dragon calling my name.

Technorati Tags: books internet reading

This may be a repeat, but I want to rant a little about labels in general. I hinted at some thoughts yesterday, but it’s been a while since I’ve talked about it, so perhaps it is time for a refresher.

I hate labels. I hate stereotypes. I had anything that predispositions a person towards something else, especially if it is another person. A person should be judged as a person, as an individual, not by his or her specific race, nationality, etc. This is not simply anti-descrimination rhetoric. This is the simple truth that all too often on a person-to-person level, people pre-judge because of meaningless and trite things.

Yesterday, I said that I might be labeled as a “compassionate atheist moderate conservative”. Two of those labels are almost ANTI labels. If you break it apart, it is really “compassionate atheist” and “moderate conservative”. In addition, we might add “atheist conservative”. You see, when someone announces they are a conservative, the stereotype associated with it is a radical religious “right-winger” … so it need to be quailified.. I am neither radical nor religious. But THAT needs qualifying, because the stereotype associated with atheist is huuuuuuge.

I can’t avoid acknowledging that they exist. At one point in my life, I tried. I wouldn’t even respond to certain words or phrases. But, that is simply ridiculous. Someone (or perhaps many people) once argued that it is human nature to categorize things. I spent a lot of energy arguing against that viewpoint… but I have perhaps a better answer to it now: who cares?

I mean really, so what if it is natural to categorize things, even humans based off of traits? What I care about is how an individual judges another individual. I don’t care if you think that all poor people are just lazy leeches… if you genuinely interact with poor people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not. And if you think that all right people are insensitive, money-grubbers.. again, if you genuinely interact with rich people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not.

So what it comes down to for me is not wether or not it is human nature to categorize things. What is comes down to is that it is a learned behavior to pre-judge an individual because of some lame categorization.

And a bad one at that.

I’ve written a couple of times in the past about marriage in general and about gay marriage.  I’m going to revisit this subject.  Please give some feedback on this as I’m not here to crusade for or against… just a moral crusade for thought.

I want to remind everyone of something very important about our heated moral debates. Generally, the debates are either a farce or a waste of time. Why? Because the different sides are arguing different points… but they generally do not realize it. It is hard to debate with a person about whether abortion is right or wrong when one person believes life starts at brith and the other at conception. If you ever find yourself in a situation where the other person just DOES NOT GET IT… go back to the defitions. That is where the debate should.. and it seems to be where it never even goes.

So, what about gay marriage?

Well, guys and gals, it’s really about definition.

See, for me, marriage is just a public announcement and commitment to an already true and established relationship; relationship being defined somewhat roughly as a connection of two people on their core values.

By this rough definition, who cares what sex marries what sex?

However, if you’re definition of marriage has to do with a Protestant Christian or Catholic notion that marriage is a holy sacrament to God, or that it is an expression of the relationship to Jesus and the Church, or.. you really don’t think about it and just it evil.

Well, then, hey, damn the gay marriages!

And do not let my generalization about religion get in the way here. It is not just about religion, these religions, or anything like that. Keep in mind that is just an example.

But let us look at something even more important. One of the largest arguments against gay marriage has to do with something that there seems to be little talk about. And that is “it’s harmful to the children”. Well, implied in that argument is the assumption that marriages HAVE to be about children.

And that is what I want people to think about. IS marriage ALWAYS about the children? Would gay marriages “destroy the family as we know it”. In this age of steadily raising population, I don’t think we need to ensure that every couple on the planet get together and pump out children. Many might say that overpopulation is a myth… but if they (or you) do… ask for some harder facts.

And no, you jackass, I do not mean I am convinced they do not exist.

I mean, I do not think you need a day to make something special which SHOULD be special all the time. Celebration is one thing, but so many people take the spirit of the “holidays” (whichever one it may be) and run it through a filter. Then, they take the good stuff left over and throw it away and frolic down the lane with the bad goo in the filter.

A proof: yesterday was Valentine’s day. I went to work and first thing walking into the building I was attacked by flowers and candy and people eyeing and comparing their gifts. It is this end bit that gets me (I really want to say “this latter bit” but I’ve been told this is improper unless you are only comparing two items. That makes me sad.)

Laaaaame.

So, I worked through the day blissfully unaware of the so-called importance of the day. Aside from the sick rituals of forced-giving and then status comparison by the recipients, I did not even have to realize what day it was.

My night was simple, having been planned out long in advance. Ate dinner at The Olde Ship [theoldeship.com]. Then went and saw ICP [insaneclownposse.com] at the Grove in Anaheim. Then hung out and got some more food a little later. Took a shower, went to bed.

Woke up at 5pm today.

A DAMN fine day, in my book. And not because of the title of the day, but because the day was good. Was it nice that it happened on Valentine’s day? Sure. But, what makes me happy, the day could have been ANY day.

Any that is what is important.

I really believe that when people become stagnant and rigid in their thoughts and beliefs, one of the best ways to open an eye is to be controversal and/or strong in your approach.

Ayn Rand comes to mind when I think about this. Her writing has changed a LOT of people, myself included, and her approach is very strong and, in a sense, very militaristic. Whether or not she really was that extreme in her beliefs I, personally, will never know. However, I do know that it had some impact and effect.

Yet, I also do not believe that you have to tackle “important” topics and always be extreme. I do not think you -always- have to make a “statement.” Because, when it comes down to it, these “important” issues are made up of other issues and values. The ones we do not always talk about.

One of the responses I got to a recent rant I posted was “Well, yeah. One problem, though. No one will argue will really argue with that.” … As if, this is a bad thing. Moreover, that I would not get comments on it (which, for the most part, I really did not). To that, I really want to say:

So what. It is not about comments, or popularity, or making a fuss for me. When I started doing this, I was writing for myself. When it stops being about writing for myself, I will stop writing. Done. However, I want to share. And while I want to make people think.. and while I will and do write about controversal issues, it is also not about that. I’m not going to go out of my way to find something controversal.

I write about what bothers me. Whether or not it is a “big issue” …. or something people will jump up and down about. I do enough of that in my daily life that I don’t always needs to write about it.

Plus, sometimes it is nice to read something and just go “Yeah.”

And maybe, just maybe, that will make all the difference.

Another response piece.  I am just tired of the taboo and unrealistic understanding of menstruation.

So, in my normal course of staying up to date with news, politics, technology, and the like, I read many different portal and such sites. I often, depending on the site and subject read the comments by users.

On this particular adventure, I was browsing through Slashdot, a news portal site primarily dedicated to technology news and, really, one of the ones that started this all.

I was reading a post on a field medical kit that can stop bleeding in two minutes. Much to my surprise, I was reading the comments on this particular issue and I suddenly found myself reading jokes about menstruation and tampons the like.

Excuse me?

Let’s get this straight right now. I’m going to give you a set of ground rules. This is it. If anyone tries to tell you different, tell them to piss off. They’re only lying to you.

1. Say the word Vagina. It’s not dirty–neither the word NOR the vagina.

2. The vagina is designed to clean itself. This is natural. See number 1.

3. Menstruation is NOT dirty. It is blood. If someone gets a cut on his/her arm, people don’t run around screaming “Ewww! How diiiiirty!” Don’t treat it different.

4. Yeah, it sucks. Let’s not make it worse–especially if you do not have to experience it.

5. Any jokes relating the above subject matter are stupid. Period.

Heh.

Now, can we stop squirming over something natural and not dirty? Can we worry about bigger issues? And can we not judge on this?

Please?

It’s time to start really living.