Why I don't talk to people

While in India I was reminded of something I’ve been very disappointed to learn about people, but adults especially. People don’t ask themselves the question ‘why?’. Moreover, when confronted with the question in relation to their actions many people dismiss the relevance of asking such a question by claiming there is no answer to the question. Before I begin to tell the tale let me start by stating the importance of being able to answer ‘why’ when faced with evaluating actions.

            The simple question of ‘why’ is the gateway to reason, humanity’s most important tool for dealing with reality. Why gives meaning and purpose to actions and causes us to think critically. There is a reason why children often ask ‘why’ incessantly; they are attempting to find meaning; they are exercising their minds just as they exercise their muscles on the playground. Besides being a tool of reason the question ‘why’ is also the motivation behind the currency of exchange between minds, reason. With anything that is not immediately clear one, assuming they care to understand, would ask a variety of questions to ascertain understanding; the most philosophical question being ‘why?’ If a person is to be understood then they must explain themselves to the person asking ‘why?’ (again, assume the person being asked desires to explain themselves). When examining one’s own actions and thoughts a person must also turn to ‘why’ in order to better understand themselves. Without embracing the question ‘why?’ a person remains a child acting on feelings without critical thought; a practice that can cause tremendous damage to a person’s life.

            So, during a visit to Kumbhalgahr Wildlife Sanctuary I asked a question concerning marriage of the people I was with. The question was simply what is the best thing about being married, the worst thing, and one thing you know now that would have been useful at the beginning of your marriage. All the people in the room were older than myself by at least 5 years, all were academics, all but two were white Americans,  and all but one had been married at least 5 years. I waited until the second round of scotch before asking this question in hopes that people would be loose enough to answer.  Not surprisingly they assumed that I asked the question because I was very nearly ready to ask someone to marry me. When I told them I was very single their interest in answering my question dropped precipitously. This in itself was very discouraging as it shouldn’t matter what stage of a relationship I was in. If anything knowing the answer to my question would be more useful to someone of my status than someone who has mostly made up their mind to get married.

            Nonetheless I pressed the issue and tried to assure them that I was very sincere about the question. Upon realizing I was serious a few proceeded to give mostly incoherent dribble, saying marriage is ‘great’, ‘easier than they thought’, ‘an everyday struggle’, etc. Interestingly none of them answered my question. The best answer was given by Dr. X who said that marriage was about caring for someone else in life. He said it was important to be an individual, but to also have responsibilities outside of oneself in order to stay grounded. I disagree with some of this philosophy, but at least it was coherent and defensible.

            The most upsetting part of this experience was Dr. Y’s response as we were leaving to go downstairs for dinner. He explained that much of marriage is ‘just doing’ for the other person. He continued by saying that once you’re married you do things for the other person because you are married, you sacrifice because that’s what marriage is all about. ‘Just like doing things for your kids, you simply do the things you’re supposed to do’ he finished. Quite appalled by this point I explained that I was interested in the ‘why’ behind such actions. He replied, ‘there is no why, you just act’.

            This is one of the worst things I’ve heard an adult say. Moreover, this statement came from a respected, tenured, scientist! Later on during the visit I discovered that Dr. Y is a Christian, which explains why he’s not particularly interested in discovering the reasons behind his actions. Nevertheless, the rest of the faculty members either didn’t answer anything or avoided the question by chiding me for asking such a question at my young age of 25.

            Needless to say I was disappointed with this response and appalled at Dr. Y’s answer. It is experiences like this that cause me to title entries such as this one. How is one able to grow and improve as a person when their questions aren’t taken seriously or answered at all? How is one expected to be comfortable with just acting because one finds themselves in a particular situation? How are people expected to have meaningful conversations when people are clearly not interested in the question ‘why?’ I am continuously confronted with conversations like this from peers and those older than me. I cannot grow in an environment with people that communicate the way most people communicate their ideas and thoughts. This is why I normally don't have meaningful conversations with most people and why I absolutely treasure the times when I do. The intellectual culture, as I’ve observed thus far, is deteriorating rapidly and it’s disappointing to be reminded that such deterioration is facilitated by those who should be supporting it. I wonder why that is?

Save the environment or save your wallet? Wait, what’s the difference?

Without a doubt the phrase and practice of ‘going green’ is one of this countries fastest growing phenomenon. Celebrities and homemakers alike are becoming increasingly aware of how to minimize their impact on the environment. Fascinating new technologies are popping up everywhere offering consumers opportunities to make lifestyle changes that are more environmentally conscious. Companies are innovating and changing in order to become the ‘most green’ in their respective industries. ‘Going green’ appears to have tremendous momentum, but I would argue that there is an element missing from this movement that, if included, would help propel environmentally conscious living even further and faster. The element that’s missing from the green movement is a proper emphasis on the economic viability of adopting green principles.

            There are two primary obstacles standing in the way of green technologies and practices from becoming mainstream among most Americans; the initial costs and an understanding of why it’s important to go green. Many of the big flashy green technological innovations (hybrid cars, solar panel electricity, grey water recycling systems, radiant wall heating system, indoor greenhouse, earthships, etc.) require an initial investment that many Americans cannot afford. The second obstacle is even more problematic because the issue is philosophical for the most part. Philosophical change takes much longer as people must understand and evaluate what they know and decide that their knowledge could benefit from new knowledge. Fortunately there is a philosophical principle embedded within American society that speaks to all people very clearly, money. It is through an appeal to this unifying entity that green industry should focus more of their attention in order to grow a movement that has enormous potential (I will not make the argument for money as a sound and moral foundation in which to advocate the green movement beyond stating that I think it is such a foundation).

The first question that needs to be addressed is how can expensive green technologies, technologies with obvious benefits, become more accessible (cheaper and more widely available) to more people. One could say that that process has already begun with those who are able to afford such technologies taking advantage of fantastic innovations. More and more we see celebrities and the exceptionally wealthy make small changes in their lifestyle that have the potential to impact other consumers. Solar panels and hybrid SUVs can be found in an increasing number of homes in Beverly Hills. From the other end of the perspective, grass roots type community movements are springing up across the nation as people are learning more about organic produce, simple green improvements for their homes, recycling programs, and the like. The result of these miniature movements is an increase in the number of products and services offered on the ‘green market’. As the market grows, more products become available. As more products become available, competition increases. Better competitors are determined by who can offer the best and cheapest products. This example, of course, is a basic economic principle. We see examples of this principle in action with the ever increasing green products available (just walk into any Lowes or Home Depot), the falling costs in various green technologies, and even the creation of a green television network (Planet Green). All of these phenomena would not exist without a growing market. So the issue of green products becoming less expensive and more accessible seems to be a problem that should continue to get better so long as consumers see value in what they are buying.

It would seem then that to expedite an explosion of green technology and green living one would have to show the consumer that it is in their best interest to invest in green products. Since products and services are acquired through an exchange of money the most logical strategy would be to appeal to the economic advantages of choosing green products over non-green products. It may simply be an artifact of those who started the green movement that such an emphasis was not a part of the agenda from the beginning, but continuing to deemphasize economic benefits to going green in favor of an ambiguous sense of altruistic sacrifice for the sake of the environment is misguided at best. Most Americans live apart from the environmental elements and processes that sustain their life and lifestyle. While many see this as a problem I would argue that such an issue doesn’t matter. In terms of green technologies, for the most part, what’s green is also what’s more economical in the long run. This idea is due to nature of green technologies and innovation; such innovation leads to improvements in efficiency of production and waste disposal. Humans, like all other organisms, are products of the environment and must live with what they produce. Human progress depends on how well we manage what we produce and the byproducts (waste) of such production. Getting people to understand this principle, or rather think about this principle when deciding what to buy is unrealistic. Luckily such a principle can be represented when a person chooses to buy solar panels for their new home rather than connecting to the power grid. There may be a variety of reasons why they made such a decision, but I would almost guarantee that such a decision is not made without a foreseeable economic payoff. And so should be the impetus for promoting green products, not petitions to people’s conscience about how buying this widget helps prevent polar bear extinction because it reduces greenhouse gasses. People don’t think about polar bears when they’re buying a car. They think about whether or not making such a purchase makes sense given the price.

The pitch for any green product or service should be simple: Buy our product because it will save you X amount of money because it’s X times more efficient than the other product. IBM has a fantastic line of commercials highlighting the fact that economics and the environment don’t have to oppose each other. Most people do not make decision without considering how things will benefit them. The easiest way to appeal to this characteristic of humanity is to appeal to what we care about most, our means of sustaining and improving our lives. Money is what we’ve chosen to represent our means of survival and progress. Our survival and progress depends on a healthy and efficient use of our environment. Why not take full advantage of such a relationship? A greener, cheaper, more efficient future is waiting, we must simply acknowledge that those three adjectives are one in the same. 

The 'I feel' epidemic

There is something very troubling about the way people speak these days. I'm not talking about foul language, or improper grammar. I'm not talking about racism, sexism, classism, or any other kind of 'ism'. I'm talking about the reference people use when talking about what they think; their feelings. Listen closely to any given discussion in this country, where ideas are being sincerely discussed, and you'll hear one of the most disturbing phrases known to man; 'I feel like... (insert thought here)'.

What's the big deal you ask? Feelings are valid, right? Everybody has them, everyone uses them, everybody is entitled to them, and no one can prevent them from occurring. All true statements, but those statements do not validate substituting feelings for thoughts. Any given two year old has feelings. What makes adults adults is the fact that we are able to manage our feelings in order to properly communicate and interact with others. One cannot argue with feelings, one cannot debate feelings, one cannot effectively discuss the validity of feelings the way one can discuss the validity of thoughts.

I think the subconscious aim of using the phrase 'I feel like (blank)' is to avoid any earnest discussion of ideas. Try asking someone to explain what they feel (think) and observe what happens. In my experience people usually respond by saying, 'I don't know, I just do', whether it is in these many words or with their body language. Usually when I question people's feelings (thoughts and ideas) they become visually uncomfortable and proceed to do everything they can to end the conversation. This is disturbing because it is evidence that people are actively attempting to invalidate their minds.

Humans, in order to communicate effectively with other humans, must have some common currency of exchange recognized by those they are communicating with. This currency is logic and reason. No one would be able to understand each other if we didn't share a universal sense making protocol. It's quite unbelievable the number people I talk to that don't recognize this fact. We would not be able to determine what is correct or what is false. Yes, some ideas are not about determining who is right and who is wrong (far fewer ideas, however, than most would claim), but the process by which we understand any idea, including ones where we cannot determine who is right and who is wrong, involves logic and reason. You may feel anything you want, but if you are going to discuss it with anyone besides yourself you must use the currency of logic if you wish to be understood.

Feelings, in most cases, make terrible currency for thought exchange. They constantly change, they vary in intensity, they are primarily subjective and person specific, they are valid simply because they exist, and they are often times difficult (or impossible) to understand (as is often the case when dealing with women) (yeah, I said it!). How can people hope to effectively communicate using such a poor medium? I think that's the point, they don't wish to communicate effectively. It's been my experience that most people don't want to be asked to explain their ideas. Most people don't want you to ask them why they've just said what they've said. Most people want to talk and be understood, and if they aren't understood then they'd rather you pretend like you understood and shut the hell up with any questions.

Am I splitting hairs? No, I don't THINK I am. Why? Because saying 'I feel like what I've said makes sense' is not the same as saying 'I think that what I've said makes sense'. One statement is accurate and the other is complete garbage. The idea that what I've said makes sense is not a product of my feelings; it's a product of my mind. I could not have written this blog when I was twelve; it has taken thirteen years for me to develop my mind to point where I can write something like this. This blog entry is a glimpse of my mind at work, as is every statement I make for others to hear. This is the case for every human being on this planet, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. Is this an intimidating notion? It certainly can be, especially to those who are just beginning to use their mind instead of their feelings (i.e. children). Yet many of us never mature past this point to overcome the discomfort of being judged by what we say. We even go to such lengths to deny the discomfort of explaining our ideas that we've declared it wrong and immoral to be judgmental. We avoid discussions by claiming a person can be certain of nothing and that words are nothing but relative abstractions or simply sounds. We've even begun substituting the word 'think' with the word 'feel' in an attempt to further distance ourselves from showing each other what's in our minds.

It's no wonder, as people continue to avoid the question 'why?', they have begun to substitute thoughts with feelings. Do not make the mistake of calling your thoughts feelings. Take the time to think why you think what you think. Examine why you feel what you feel and transforms your feelings to thoughts. Stand on the product of you mind and not the ever changing, unpredictable, immediate, and often volatile ground of your feelings. Seek to exchange ideas with the most consistent and valid currency humans have logic and reason. Yes, thoughts require work to develop, but development is what life is about. Take responsibility for your mind, graduate beyond merely feeling to actually thinking. And most importantly, do not succumb to the fear of being judged by your thoughts and ideas by calling them feelings; you will never grow up if you do.

My inappropriate desire of the opposite sex

I'm not satisfied with my physical appearance. I'm too fat for my tastes and have struggled with finding the discipline to meet my physical standards. Over the past few days I've devoted time to thinking about the history of me trying to lose weight and why I've failed to do so. Ultimately, my failure stems from a weak commitment to self discipline. This weak commitment has manifested itself in an acute and extensive array of excuses I offer myself for being content with the way I look.

Yesterday I discovered that I over emphasize minimal progress in meeting my physical appearance goals. I recently lost close to 15lbs. after 2 months of rigorous exercise only to gain it all back when my discipline succumbed to a change in my daily schedule. During this regression I clung to the small changes in appearance I experienced from my previous hard work as an excuse to slack off. My thinking was, 'at least I won't have to start from where I started from three months ago'. Unfortunately, this thought is not entirely true. While I'm not back to my original size before I began working out, the mental discipline I need to make significant changes is still the same. I still make the same excuses and avoid the same avenues to success in fear of their difficulty and subsequent discomfort.

Now to the revelation that lead me to this entry. I discovered today that my desire to be liked by the opposite sex serves as a validation for the person I am dissatisfied with. The beginnings of this thought occurred last night while talking to a friend about her relationship with a guy who is overweight. They have been close friends for a year and decided to explore a romantic relationship with each other. Unfortunately, things will not work out mainly because the my girl friend is unhappy with the guy's physical appearance. She has not broken up with him in hopes that he grasp the extent of her dissatisfaction and recognize that he probably won't change. Of course this is absurd to hope for for the precise reason I discovered in myself. She is providing validation for his stagnation (sorry for the rhyme distraction) by hoping he will give up his pursuit. I told her however, that he will never do so because it's easier for him to deal with the idea that she might change than it is for him to confront his self-esteem. It took me nearly 24hrs to realize I use the affections of women as validation that I'm fine just the way I am; a notion I reject every time I take my shirt off.

So what now? I must embrace the idea that women may not be interested in me because I'm too fat for them. And as long as I'm too fat for me I should continue to embrace this notion. It's been my policy to grudgingly reject women I suspect might feel that way. Of course our culture suggests that this is valid because everyone knows that a person should love you regardless of what you look like. I've always thought this to be a completely stupid notion, but it's only now that I recognize how readily I embraced it when faced with the alternative of confronting my self-esteem. The only thing to do now is meet my standards of self I consider possible and reasonable to achieve. I know loosing weight can be done and it's more than reasonable for me to do it. Because of this new revelation it would not be proper, fair, or wise for me to accept the affections of any woman until this goal is met. This is the conclusion I've run away from and its been a major contributor to my lack of progress. So to all the women out there who I meet and those whom I've met let me state unequivocally that I am not available. I will not consider myself available until I can stand naked in front of the mirror with pride and confidence. This I declare on June 20, 2008.

If you think this entry was difficult to write, it was. But surprisingly not as difficult as I thought it would be before I sat down to write it. Let any embarrassment I feel serve as the motivation I may need if my discipline falters. Far to often we ignore our discomfort with things we have the to power to change. I will no longer accept a relationship that is below my standards; the standards I hold for myself.

The Nature of Evil

I recently stumble across what I consider one of the most profound conclusions I've ever thought of. Like many thoughts we think this particular thought was the product of other thoughts thought up be other individuals. In this case my conclusions on the nature of evil are the products of objectivist philosophy.

I remember sitting in my apartment one evening and the thought coming to me very simply, 'Evil must be sanctioned'. As it turns out this wasn't the entire conclusion, but it was enough to make me stop what I was doing and ponder the idea further. 'Evil must be sanctioned', wow! I then began to think what does this mean? What does this explain about the state of humanity? As most of my serious thinking is devoted to understanding how we, as humans, have gotten our current state of existence I was very pleased to have this breakthrough. I thought some more about this conclusion and was still not quite satisfied. Evil must be sanctioned.... what?. Well there is a lot of evil in this world and it's been around for a very long time. I'm mainly talking about philosophical evil because anything that persists in human existence that is the product of human actions is first the product of a philosophy that deems such actions necessary. And then I had it! 'Evil must be sanctioned in order to persist'; which easily translates to 'Evil must have been sanctioned in order to have persisted this long'.

What do I mean by evil you ask? Evil can be described as the actions or thoughts a person engages in to avoid dealing with their insecurities. Ha, what I love about this definition (one I just cooked up while on the toilet) is that it requires a context for the examination of any action and not just a blanket declaration of certain actions to be evil. Allow me to digress for just a second. I'm cooking up an essay on why I don't agree with religion (mainly Christianity) and my definition of evil fits perfectly into it. Let's examine the killing of a person. Christianity will tell you that the killing of a person is sin no matter the context. I think this is absurd as there are many cases when killing another person is appropriate and necessary. Think about premarital sex, an action deemed evil by Christianity. What about the couple that have pledged their lives to each other in their hearts and minds? Should they have to wait until a ceremony before they experience the pleasure of sex? These and other sins are meant for people to follow instructions without the context of their reality, but what does this say about the insecurities of the authors of such rules?

Back to the point. Evil exists and continues to exist because humans are willing to make what they think are compromises between their principles and their reality in order to assuage their insecurities. In actuality, these 'compromises' are really sacrifices of mental autonomy that pave the way for the chronically insecure. The majority of human leadership is composed of the chronically insecure, those individuals who spend most of their lives running from the fact that they do not feel comfortable in their own skin and seek to master whatever existence they can of everyone else but themselves. The people who demand of others before they demand of themselves. The people who attempt to gain respect through fear and false pretenses. The individuals who will do anything to shield themselves from their own reality. How do such people gain power? The answer, as I discovered recently, is quite simple; by taking advantage of the insecurities of others.

Let me explain why this is such a powerful and depressing conclusion. This conclusion is depressing because it means the state of humanity is do to people's sacrifice of their principles. It is not do to the devil, or some other supernatural spirit that holds some kind of mystical influence over us that can be wiped away or forgiven by some other, more powerful benevolent influence. The responsibility of human tragedy lies squarely on each individual's shoulders; every second of everyday. And let me say that Christianity, and I imagine other religions, say mostly the same thing, I think the level of mysticism involved clouds the issue.
This conclusion is powerful in that it exposes evil for the frail, frightened, insecure child that it is. Something to be squashed at will by those with the strength to do so. Evil will always exists because humans will always posses the ability to ignore their reality. However, evil will only persists if people allow it to. Evil continues to exist because of us, not because it's inherent power, but because of the power we allow it to have. I can't resist this statement; but given these conclusions what does this say about God and the existence of the devil?

Unfortunately for us, evil has been allowed to exists for thousands of years in humans and because of this the options we have in combating evil are extreme and unpleasant. As I stated earlier the chronically insecure, the champions of ignoring self and reality, have been allowed to take leadership positions in areas that effect every aspect of human life. Many of these positions only exist because people have sacrificed their mental autonomy for what they thought was a compromise or a convenience. Sadly, the battle against the evil of humanity is a battle to the death, or to an existence many feel is unacceptable. It's funny because this has always been the case because the sanctioning of evil inevitably leads to death. It seems evil is showing us what is truly at stake when we allow it to exist; very, very ironic. Consider the choice African slaves had to make during the horrendous experience of being brought to America. Essentially Europeans offered them this choice, 'Come with us and you may live, or you can fight us and most likely die.' Think about what would have happened if every single African fought to the death. What would the slave traders have done? What could they do? The cost of capturing humans would have been too great. Many Africans fought to the death, and when captured, many Africans committed suicide, but not enough Africans made the choice to die rather than live a slave to stop the evil present in the minds of those Europeans.

Now let me say the evil that confronted Africans, and the evil that confronts the Sudanese in Darfur, and the evil that confronted the Jews in the 1940's, and the evil the confronted Cambodians in the 1970's is and was some of the most disturbing and powerful evil that can be confronted by a human being. The choice between life and, not just death, a horrible death, is one I cannot imagine. But, we know this choice is a reality because evil is now a perpetual element of human reality. Because of this we must strive to live life by principles we cannot live without; principles that, if sacrificed, would lead to an existence worse than the one brought to us by those who embrace evil.

Evil needs you. It needs you to be afraid so that you'll do what it says. It needs you to relinquish your judgment so that it can substitute its judgment. It needs you to say things are better with it in charge. Evil needs you to give up, but to keep on living so that it has a role. Evil will do whatever it takes to own you and control your reality, but it NEEDS YOU to do it. Many conversations about how to fix the world and humanity with my peers have lead to conclusion that there is no system designed to effectively discourage cheaters. It's only now that I realize what such a system would look like. It would be a reality where people's principles meant more to them than the prospect of living without them. Saying there is no system to prevent cheaters is a sad indictment on the moral fiber of humanity. Even worse, my peers are saying the depravity of humanity's moral fiber is irrecoverable. 'All it takes is one cheater and the whole system goes to shit' they say. I vehemently disagree. 'All it takes is one cheater and a large group of people that do not oppose such cheating for the whole system to go to crap'. How do stop of bully? You stand up to them, you show them you aren't afraid; that if they try to beat you up they may succeed, but you won't make it easy for them. A bully is made by those who don't fight back, those who give up their milk money without a fight. It's interesting that lessons from the playground are thought to be too simple for 'the real world'. Bullying tactics may become more sophisticated and certainly more brutal, but at the end of the day it comes down to this; fight or give up.

You may claim, like many of my peers do, that people faced with extreme evil do not have a choice. I think that short of total mind control this notion is a fallacy. What I suspect most people mean by the idea that people facing extreme evil don't have a choice is that they don't have a favorable choice or that they have a terrible choice. One of my favorite quotes from the Dune series is, 'You can die now or you can die later, this is the choice you always have and will always have' (this isn't a direct quote, I'm paraphrasing). Of course this is true, and while it's an unpleasant reality, it is a powerful one.

At its core evil is dependence and because of this evil can be destroyed. Unfortunately, to defeat evil it may require your own destruction or the destruction of something you love. Be prepared to die now; a human life finds it's value in the things it is willing to not live without. Do not betray these things should evil demand them. Evil has no right to them. Evil has gone far enough.

Love and Baseball

I had this thought in the shower, it started as a questions: If I kiss someone and it leads to making out and that leads to some nakedness, but I then decide to stop, what does that say about my judgment?

This question, like many of my thoughts, started out as a mental itch, a notion that was bothersome but lacked substance. The itch is usually something that seems logical, but the steps through such logic are unclear. The terminal idea to this question is, 'if I kiss someone I should have determined that I would sleep with this person before I kiss them'. The reason for this is the immediate answer to my original question. If I were to stop at second base then it means I don't trust my judgment. I've essentially failed to hit a homerun. I believe a person's actions should be deliberate and thought driven and that they represent a person's mental state and thinking, or lack thereof. I thought about the reasons why I would/have stopped an intimate encounter and they all are the result of clearly thinking followed by me or her saying 'this isn't a good idea', or some version of that. When I think about being sure enough I want to sleep with someone being the prerequisite for any form of physical intimacy it puts a different spin on my interactions with women and most importantly, engages more of my mind. I believe taking an all or nothing approach to physical intimacy is best because it's all or nothing when it comes to what I desire in a woman. Think about what this would mean for people, especially young people, if they were to think of things this way. It would probably mean that we wouldn't be getting as much action as we are now, but would that be a bad thing? Think of all the unwanted pregnancies, STDs, broken hearts, sexual assaults, confused feelings, arguments, and other unpleasantries that have resulted in people separating physical intimacy from their ideals. Think about what 'gettin some' for the sake of physical pleasure says about a person's mind, their self-esteem. Failed relationships should cause a person to hold themselves to a higher standard more so than anything, because a failed relationship is first a failure of judgment. In most cases a failure in judgment can be avoided if the person becomes more rigorously involved in their thinking processes, more in control of their emotions.

One of things I like about Atlas Shrugged is the depiction of love between two people. In this book a romantic relationship is a celebration of self between two equals. It's not one person plugging the holes in the other's personality. It's not a relationship based on mutual pity for each other's faults and shortcomings. And it's most certainly not a compromise of ideals or principles because there can be no such thing. People worthy of romantic relationships have committed to knowing themselves and hold this as the most important thing in their lives. They don't seek anything from someone else that they should demand of themselves as such an act is a plea for pity, which is an excuse for stagnation and the act of a parasite. Relationships should be a celebration of similar personal achievement and nothing more. The only thing a person should ask of another is that they be true to themselves; there can be no more certain path to knowing someone. It then becomes easy to identify why you love someone, because their person is not hidden behind insecurities. Lies generally stem from insecurities; I know because I used to lie about things I was insecure about. Watch out for the things you request from others you're in a relationship with. Why do I crave attention from this person? Why do I claim to need affection from him/her? Why do I need to talk to this person everyday regardless if I have something to say? Why am I jealous of every person that talks to my boy/girlfriend? Am I hoping that this person will change eventually? Do I feel self-conscious around this person? And the list goes on.

A thought occured to me when I was listening to a Jill Scott song earlier today. It seems that many of us hold finding our true love as one of, if not, the most rewarding experiences in life. We spend so much time and energy finding the right person for us, yet so many of us get it wrong, so very many of us. Could it be that we are going about it the wrong way? Could it be that the only true love we can be sure of is the very person we neglect during our search? I believe your own person is your first and best true love. It's the person you show your love for by constantly improving and challenging and stimulating to grow. The time one spends looking for someone to compliment them is time spent away from personally growth and improvement, which sells your hopefull sweat heart short. Living up to ones standards is the only currency of exchange in relationships. A person worried about finding someone is someone not completely comfortable with themselves. This level of self comfort is difficult to achieve, but avoiding the task only serves to cheapen any relationship a person has. Ask yourself if you would rather spend your life living up to your standards and growing to your full capacity and end up alone, or would you sacrifice even a fraction of personal growth for the company of someone else in life? Answering yes to the latter will almost certainly lead to a life of misery will answering yes to the former will only leave the slightly bitter taste of dissappointment in not finding an equal.

I'm only interested in hitting a homerun. They say it's one of the hardest things for a human to do. In baseball the difficulty comes from proper timing, power, pitch recognition, bat speed, and accuracy. In life the difficulty comes from the process of knowing one's self. Batter up!

Hermit the Hall

Over the last week I've become increasingly antisocial. Several of my friends have called me to check up on things and see how I'm doing. None of them have I called back. I don't have a particular desire to talk to people these days, especially two of my friends whom I don't really find conversations with them all that stimulating. I suppose that's what I'm after with interactions with people, positive stimulation. My increased prejudice with people is directly related to the books I'm reading; Atlas Shrugged and Philosophy: Who Needs It, both by Ayn Rand. Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, is tremendously stimulating to say the least. What's driven me to the level of antisocialness is an increased awareness of my own conciousness, my own ideas, my own mind and its inner workings. Objectivism ideas force you to face yourself and engage your mind constantly and continuously. I've found that a lot of my ideas, ones that differ from what many of my peers and others think, ideas or notions I took for instincts, are the beginnings of Objectivist ideas that I haven't explored in more detail. For instance, the idea of the tragedy of the commons, a common idea held in the field of ecology that a group of humans dependent on a limited resource will always exploit that resource until it is depleted, bothered me from the day I heard it. My thought was, if people were rational and forward thinking, characteristics in this case I think requires little mental effort, would realize that if one individual were to take more than their share then the resource would soon be depleted. My thought was not particularly profound or new to those I shared it with, but their response to it was 'well, people aren't that way, they are generally stupid and destructive'. This response coincides with the Christian idea that humanity is doomed to sin and must work hard to overcome the conditions of its soul set forth by Adam and Eve's original sin. What bothers me about both these responses is that there is no way for humans to overcome the negative potential within else, except through the dubious mercy of God as in the Christian example. It's as if humans do not have the capcity to avoid or combat the evils of our minds. I don't believe humans were born evil, it takes work to live up to the potential of the human mind and escape mental laziness which is at the root of most, if not all, depravity in humans. This is part of Rand's message in that humanity must use it's most powerful tool, reason, to overcome what we have allowed ourselves to become as a species; a species that is mentally sick and thus seeks to destroy itself in frustration and fear.

So how has this lead me to be antisocial? I hinted at it early when I said that I don't get much out of some of my interactions with friends. I've resolved to squash the laziness in me, the part of me that seeks to always be comfortable and relaxed, the part of me that seeks to turn off thinking and bathe itself in pleasure. Doing this requires much of my mental time; time that I have been wasting for the most part. It is during my mental relaxation time that I would normally call these people to contribute to my mental laziness. I didn't anticipate getting much out of the conversation, but it was okay because I wasn't really thinking anyway. I essentially don't have much time for that now, nor do I even have the desire to talk to people I don't find stimulating; it's a waste of time. Part of me feels bad for thinking this, but as I've come to realize these feelings of guilt are what enables the mental laziness of humanity to continue. Think about what would happen if people only had meaningful conversations with people and didn't bother with small talk and pointless banter. Better yet, ask yourself what is the point of small talk if that's all an interaction is composed of? I fail to see how conversations that don't stimulate your brain are a good use of time and apologizing for that is simply unhealthy. Chances are if I don't talk to a person I don't find them to be a good use of my time.

Thoughts

Here are two thoughts I had during class about humanity. It's funny, some of my best thinking occurs during times when I should be paying attention to the professor. Actually, if the professor was saying something terribly relevant then I probably wouldn't have time to think about these things. Here we go:

1) The only thing that can temper the potential disasters from human discovery is a strong sense of morals; a concrete code of values and principles. We fear many scientific discoveries and breakthroughs because we humans can sense the shaky moral ground our society and culture stands on. Fear of progress and discovery comes from a fear one has in one's self and one's ability to withstand anything. Fanatic fear represents a tremendous doubt in one's own morality.

Now, one can guess what has inspired me to write these words. As I stated in a previous entry I've started reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, but this thought was inspired by her non-fiction work The Virtue of Selfishness. This book has been a nice supplement while reading Atlas Shrugged. It's opened my eyes to some of the points Rand is trying to make in her book, points I might have missed otherwise. I was thinking about the scientific discoveries that seem to be immanent on the human horizon; stem cell usage, cloning, genetic mapping, etc. For some time now I've been trying to reconcile the fact that these, and other discoveries have the potential to ruin life as we know it, yet they hold important breakthroughs for our existence. We can't stop people from discovering, but these discoveries will probably be disastrous given the current psyche of humanity. I've been wondering how this situation can be fixed and it appears I found at least of piece of the answer. Paralyzing fear, a fear to act, represents low self-esteem I believe; a lack of self confidence. Many people are against scientific discoveries because they know, or fear, what humanity will do with such knowledge. Others who want to plow ahead and discover things often lack foresight into what such discoveries will mean on the human landscape. I'm concerned about what humanity will do if/when we perfect human cloning. I'm concerned because much of humanity is morally reprehensible. Our values are not set and when dealing with the unknown and the potentially dangerous you better damn well know yourself and what you stand for, otherwise you'll be consumed and/or trampled over. To know yourself is to eliminate the number of ideas and scenarios that strike fear into your heart. Yup, okay, here's thought number two:

2) It seems, more so than anything, humanity suffers from a lack of self-esteem; a disbelief in the abilities of one's potential to accomplish. We have internalized the societal propaganda that someone else knows better than we do. We defer to experts, gurus, gods, prophets, mystics, government officials, politicians, committees, advisors, and the like to inform us, guide us, teach us about our own reality and existence. This ultimately leads to them thinking for us. Our society tells us we need to listen to these people (not a terribly insidious thing) only to the point that we understand enough of what they are saying to be okay with doing what they say we should do, because they have our, or society's, best interests in mind. This type of logic is only prevalent in one other stage of humanity, childhood, yet we recognize the necessity to discard this parental philosophy as essential for growth and development into adulthood. Curious that this parental philosophy is so prevalent in modern society. I see now that selfishness is the only way to survive as human. And by selfishness I mean an unwavering belief in one's ability to know what is right.

I've amended the original thought because this says it better. Another Rand inspired rant of course, and one that somewhat echoes what I wrote in my first thought. This idea of selfishness is intriguing to me. I like it because I believe it's the only way one can be true to oneself; something I try to do at all times. I think people have a problem with being selfish because they think selfish people will constantly take advantage of others in an effort to please themselves. This isn't the case as only stupid people disregard the environment and context they live in. Only stupid people do not consider the consequences of their actions and act to please their whims. Only stupid people believe that they can and should get everything they want in the way they think they should have it. Selfishness does not imply or include these people and their stupidity. Most people say they value independence, but I think we don't realize what it takes to stand alone in one's own mind. To answer first and foremost to yourself, to think for yourself, live for yourself, and act for you interests. The interests of any individual will most likely, at some point, benefit or involve someone else. This involvement, if the person is thinking about their interests and answering to their morals, will usually not involve taking advantage of, or harming someone else. Stupid people often think they can get away with harming others, or simply don't care. The alternative to being selfish is to act for someone else's interests which is akin to being a slave.

One year since

January 19, 2007 was the day my sister died. I remember being woken up at some time past midnight by my father. He told me that my sister was gone and that he would talk to me tomorrow. I don't think I've ever heard my dad cry the way he did as he got off the phone with me. I think I took some time to cry before calling Tony and giving him the news. He was shocked, which surprised me. We talked for a little while about the visit I had planned to make that very next day. We had planned to go to the NAIAS in Detroit that weekend. I ended up going, which was a very good decision I think. It was good to be around my friend during that time.

During the next couple of days I had a couple of mild crying spells, but was pretty composed for the most part. The funeral was on the 27th in Dade City, FL. At the wake I had my biggest cry, although it wasn't until we were leaving that things really hit me. That I wouldn't be able to talk to my sister again and that she was gone. My dad, who never cried after that phone call, gave me a hug as I sobbed. The funeral was nice. My step uncle, a very charismatic and, I think, good person, was the master of ceremonies. There were a lot of sad people as my sister was the type of person everyone in the family loved. Terrell, my sister's husband, was composed during the funeral, but not so composed when my sister was buried. He and my step sister, Elvera, cried in each others arms for a good ten minutes after my sister was in the ground. It was sad, very sad. My nephews cried, but I was surprised at how well they handled things. I was very proud of them and thought that they are going to be my kind of people.

Since my sister's passing my brother-in-law hasn't handled things the way most of us in the family would want. He's terrible at keeping in touch and doesn't answer the phone. He's had two relationships since my sister's death; the latest one, which is going on now, involves the woman staying at the house. Of course my father is particularly upset, but I've tried to lobby for Terrell. He never struck me as the type of person who does so well by himself, and I believe my sister was his rock. I imagine she took care of many of the day to day things, as most women who have families do. More so than anything, I believe Terrell is tremendously sad and probably depressed. Even though my sister was in a vegetative state after suffering a seizure he still had hope that she would make a full recovery. My adviser made the comment that Terrell probably feels abandoned, and I think that's very possible. I'm not mad at Terrell, mainly because I think I understand him. I do wish he were a little more communicative, but people grieve differently. I'm concerned about the boys, my sister's sons and will write them letters. I'm not sure what I'm going to say yet. I probably won't ever be sure though, I wasn't sure what I was going to write when I sat down to do this blog.

Time has definitely moved swiftly over this last year. A lot has happened since January 19, 2007. I miss my sister every time I think about her. She was most certainly one of my favorite people. I don't have any regrets about our relationship. I do sometimes wish she was here so I could talk to her in the way we used to. She will forever be missed, Alicia Hamm, my sis, my friend.

Selfishness

So I've started reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. This book was recommended to me by my best friend who has read it before. I'm always up for reading something Tony recommends so this was a no brainer. It's a long book, something like 1100 pages, which is nice because it's going to take a while. I like books that take a while, it gives you time to observe changes within yourself as you read. The book starts off a bit slow and I found it sort of confusing keeping all of the characters straight. I also tried to think of how what I was reading would fall into what I think I know about the story. I don't like that I've done this and have since stopped, because it took away from the story. One of the things I always do in situations I know I will be involved with for more than a moment is try to layout a map of what will come. I believe I do this because I'm uncomfortable with myself in new situations, which really means I'm somewhat uncomfortable with myself in general. It's one of my self-destructive characteristics that I've been working on as of late.
Anyway, my first impressions of the story are simply this: what a fantastic book this will be.
There are certain books that depict the nature of humans that I wish to be true and Atlas Shrugged is one such book. Like many artists, Ayn Rand is on the extreme side of her vision of what people should be, so I take her views and ideas with a grain of salt. However, her insight into human nature is thus far quite acurrate and refreshing. I've read about half of another one of her works The Virtues of Selfiness and had to stop because she referrenced Atlas Shrugged too much. Her ideas on selfishness are somewhat like this: people who do not act in principle for their own interests are not realizing their potential and the alternative is quite destructive and dangerous. I love this idea because it challenges me and also polarizes humanity; I love to feel different from most and believe in many ways I am, especially in my thinking. Moreover, and I'll get to my personal insights on Rand's ideas in a minute, I believe her message is very needed as humanity is failing at life and is need of a new perspective. Now, selfishness does not mean that acting in one's own interests involves constantly being at odds with the interests and welfares of others, it simply means that a person's own interests must not be whimsically cast aside for the interests of others. People who aren't thinking clearly will say being selfish is inherently bad, but it isn't. We humans are social and must live with the wills of others. Moreover, we rely and depend on each other to maintain a level of civility and order on a day to day basis. Inevitably, our own personal interests must factor in what it takes to maintain our social environment at a level we find acceptable. Stupid individuals who don't consider this are the ones most people call selfish, those people who say to hell with you people over there I'm going to do what I want. The destructive part of that statement is the "to hell with people over there" not the "I'm going to do what I want" part. What a person wants is to do what the want, but in the context of a human reality. Most rulers of the world, past and present, haven't realized the negatives of the first statement and are forced to deal with the consequences. This is the case because most, if not all, of humanity is very short sighted in their visions of how they want things to be. Couple that with the fact that humanity has gotten lazier brained as the decades passed and you've got a situation where generally stupid people have tremendous power and don't care about the consequences of their actions.
I find it interesting that Rand bashes altruism in Atlas Shrugged. It's been difficult wrapping my mind around the logic of her point, but I think it's a good one. I've always had a problem with the idea of altruism, mainly because I could never see how someone could explain its existence without referencing some personal benefit to th altruist. Personally, I don't think there is such a thing. Rand believes the idea of altruism has the potential to destroy people and nations. Ah, I think I get it now! Sacrifice is the name of the game for altruism to work. One must forego their own interests (be unselfish) for the good of others or the group. If people are always doing so, and willingly, then people are always acting for the greater good. Unfortunately, sacrifice is not always the best thing, especially when a person's own interests benefit others. Rand chooses to illustrate this by highlighting the frustrations of uniquely talented people and their conflicts with societal values. The problem with 'unselfishness' is when it becomes morally good to sacrifice oneself. When this happens not doing so, no matter the circumstances, becomes evil, and if enough people think something is evil then things can get ugly quickly. One of the problems with the way people think, or not think, is that they do not consider circumstances. Everyone wants a cookie-cutter way of thinking, of approaching problems, of dealing with their brains. They want to know what to do in every given situation so that they don't have to worry themselves with the details of the situation. Thinking it is always good to sacrifice yourself for someone else is a bad thing. The yielding of one's self is the yielding of one's judgment and potentially one's principles.
One thing that's bothered me about myself is my inability to make tough decisions (or what I think are tough decisions). I find it hard mainly because I am considering how the people around me are going to be affected. I believe my caring for other people is one of my strengths, but the cost is my slow decision making process. What I've gotten from the book so far is a challenge to recenter my perspective when it comes to tough decisions. Being selfish requires a level of honesty that's not present when you are centered on the desires of others. In my case, my desires are often in conflict with what I perceive the other person wants from me. Being more selfish helps to better evaluate my desires as I have to first consider what it is I want. Fuck, I sound like I've just had a session with Dr. Phil.
What I've also realized is that I make a lot of apologies for my thoughts and behaviors. These are mostly little thoughts and behaviors, things someone would say are somewhat unique to my personality; the creative me. Society will ask a person to apologize for being different, but I didn't really realize that that request went as deep as my thoughts until I started reading this book. So much of what is normal, acceptable thoughts are constantly being entrained in us on a day to day basis. I've been far to receptive to this not so subtle requests. It's liberating to realize this and challenging to resist, but essential to practice. Why should I do things this way? Why should I think of things that way? Wonderful questions!
The last thing I'll speak on is my purpose in this life. I'm not sure what that is, actually, I have no idea what that is. At least I've not yet come up with an idea that gets me going. I don't like the world I live in by any means. Things are fundamentally wrong with humanity at the moment and I'm not sure if I have a place here. Most would agree that things are messed up, but would argue that they've always been that way and probably won't change. I hate to here this as it represents how messed up things truly are for people. People who believe this simply try to find a place in this world where they can be happy. I don't believe things have always been this fucked up, but maybe I've been romanticized by people like Daniel Quinn. Regardless of where or not things have been this screwy I refuse t believe the will probably always be this way. I have to feel like I am contributing to the change in humanity I want to happen. I realize that my lifetime is probably too short to see this change, but that's truly irrelevant to me. At the moment I'm sort of waiting around for this current system to collapse, something I think will happen within a few generations from now; maybe my great grands' time. I've been told that this is just lazy, and part of that is true. It wouldn't be lazy if I was actively searching for my niche, which I'm not doing as actively as I should. I know this because I'm not ready to quite my complaining about society. I wonder what I'll want to be/do.