She walks in the large report room in the morning for a day shift: "___, I heard all you did all night was watch Tales From The Darkside!"
What response am I supposed to give? Is this supposed to be funny? Or is she accusing me of being lazy? What's funny about it? The look on my face I suppose, as I sit there baffled, annoyed and slightly fearful of how I can respond to these constant disparaging remarks. Yes, that's real funny I'm sure to her.
----
(Phone rings, I look at the caller ID. Same number that's called at least ten times tonight. They've called so many times we don't bother to introduce ourselves to each other.) I pick up and say: "1134A's in the bathroom."
"Yes, thank you."
"Thank you."
She overhears and says: "Is that how you answer the phone?" Then pantomines what I said but while sounding vaguely retarded.
Is she just being funny or should I defend myself by explaining the whole situation to this person who isn't my boss? Other than explaining what am I supposed to do? Laugh? There's nothing funny at all whatsoever. Just completely ignore her? Then am I being rude in her eyes?
----
i walk into the med room. She's in there with another nurse. With a perfectly serious look on her face she says: "I was back in Stepdown for 15 minutes and I didn't see anyone."
Then she waits expectantly for a response...
"I was in with a patient doing trach care and some other things."
Still very serious and admonishing: "____, someone needs to be back there at all times." Then looks at me with an expectant and still serious face.
"...are you trying to be funny or something?"
The other girl there looking uncomfortable finally manages a laugh and says: "JM is always trying to be funny."
The first girl smiles and says: "Trying? I am funny!" Then walks away.
----
Way back as a nurses aide this person actually took me aside for a private meeting to discuss my failings as a nurses aide. She was full of shit then. Claiming I had done things I hadn't. She was just trying to help me out she said. She was 'concerned' for me. Instead of getting annoyed with her I held my tongue and acted as if I was grateful for her kind guidance in the incredibly complex duties of wiping very sick people's asses.
Still she apparently managed to get upset based on this inappropriate private meeting she had with me. As she then bizarrely ran around talking to the air about being open with people and just getting something negative in return. Wish I remembered the exact words. Surely she was talking about me. But I was sitting right there. And I had tried to be civil with her for her private meeting. How effing bizarre. Er, what the hell am I supposed to do with such as that?
Then followed 6 months of constant jokes about how I couldn't even pull people up in bed.
---
Then two nurses years with 20 years experience apparently tried to have a 'private meeting' with her. To discuss her inappropriate behavior. Excessive flirting with doctors. Spending 50% of her time just following around some guy who worked there instead of taking care of her patients. Instead of going to the boss they attempted to talk to her. Exactly as she had earlier complained that she wished people would do with one another.
She utterly dismissed what they said and has now spent a solid year smearing them behind their back. Walking into a crowd of ten employees and going on and on about it. Basically literally making sure everyone knows how awful they are. And indeed successfully turning some people against them.
What do I do with such a person? Who is now coming to full time night shift to constantly be passive aggressive with me. She confronts me as perfectly serious as can be, constantly. Then just waits for a reaction from me. Why? She gets a kick out of me not knowing how in the hell to respond to her constant attacks. Then, usually, claims, "Oh I was just kidding." Etc. But at the same time she's clearly not joking.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
It annoys me sometimes how vaguely defined is the word 'love'. The reason it is this way I think is because people want to think they feel exactly the same about one another in a relationship. At least some people do anyway. And so they can say they both 'love' each other while having very different albeit positive feelings for one another. The word is so vague because almost never do people feel exactly the same about one another.
It's an unfortunate thing. People have to hide the truth from one another. Our language in this case simply keeps things as vague as they must be. Could this be the case for language in general? Is hiding the truth always important? With the ability to communicate with one another with far greater clarity, with the resulting all around increase in clarity of thought, what would happen?
It seems to me to be the evolutionary edge. Where again, we have ways in which we must be dumb to make up for being too smart. The edge being the point at which our evolving intelligence (which we used to kill all other species) causes us to self destruct.......... And so we must pull back from what we might know.
---
Alan Watts has a beautiful voice. Otherwise not so sure I agree with a lot of what he says.
It's an unfortunate thing. People have to hide the truth from one another. Our language in this case simply keeps things as vague as they must be. Could this be the case for language in general? Is hiding the truth always important? With the ability to communicate with one another with far greater clarity, with the resulting all around increase in clarity of thought, what would happen?
It seems to me to be the evolutionary edge. Where again, we have ways in which we must be dumb to make up for being too smart. The edge being the point at which our evolving intelligence (which we used to kill all other species) causes us to self destruct.......... And so we must pull back from what we might know.
---
Alan Watts has a beautiful voice. Otherwise not so sure I agree with a lot of what he says.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
One has to still believe in people's potential while recognizing the stupidity behind their actions. One has to somehow still believe in their potential while recognizing their willful ignorance. If you don't believe in their potential then you're basically believing that they're evil, that they must be punished in order to learn to be good, that they must have fear in them to keep them on the straight and narrow.
Must somehow believe they have potential despite their willful ignorance. Despite their closedmind.
But how do they really have any potential when such is the case? In the face of the closed mind what is left really but anger and force?
The mind is closed because of fear. Have to reduce their fear enough that it opens...
Must somehow believe they have potential despite their willful ignorance. Despite their closedmind.
But how do they really have any potential when such is the case? In the face of the closed mind what is left really but anger and force?
The mind is closed because of fear. Have to reduce their fear enough that it opens...
What has changed, in the last few years, is that the advice to at least act in a positive way has taken on a harsher edge. The penalty for nonconformity is going up, from the possibility of job loss and failure to social shunning and complete isolation. In his 2005 best seller, Secrets of the Millionaire Mind, T. Harv Eker, found of "Peak Potentials Training," advices that negative people have to go, even, presumably, the ones that you live with: "Identify a situation or a person who is a downer in your life. Remove yourself from that situation or association. If it's family, choose to be around them less." In fact, this advice has become a staple of the self help literature, of both the secular and Christian varieties. "GET RID OF NEGATIVE PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE." writes motivational speaker and coach Jeffrey Gitomer. "They waste your time and bring you down. If you can't get rid of them (like a spouse or a boss), reduce your time with them." And if that isn't clear enough, J. P. Maroney, a motivational speaker who styles himself "the Pitbull of Business," announces:
What would it mean in practice to eliminate all the "negative people" from one's life? It might be a good move to separate from a chronically carping spouse, but it is not so easy to abandon the whiny toddler, the colicky infant, or the sullen teenager. And at the workplace, while it's probably advisable to detect and terminate those who show signs of becoming mass killers, there are other annoyin people who might actually have something useful to say: the financial officer who keeps worrying about the bank's subprime mortgage exposure or the auto excutive who questions the company's overinvestment in SUVs and trucks. Purge everyone who "brings you down," and you risk being very lonely or, what is worse, cut off from reality. The challenege of family life, or group life of any kind, is to keep gauging the moods of others, accomodating to their insights, and offering comfort when needed.
But in the world of positive thinking other people are not there to be nurtured or to provide unwelcome reality checks. They are there only to nourish, praise, and affirm. Harsh as this dictum sounds, many ordinary people adopt it as their creed, displaying wall plaques or bumper stickers showing the word "Whining" with a cancel sign through it. There seems to be a massive empathy deficit, which people respond to be withdrawing their own. No one has the time of patience for anyone else's problems.
In mid-2006, a Kansas City pastor put the growing ban on "negativity" into practice, announcing that his church would now be "complaint free." Also, there would be no criticising, gossiping, or sarcasm. To reprogram the congregation, the Reverend Will Bowen distributed purple silicone bracelets that were to be worn as reminders. The goal? Twenty-one complaint-free days, after which the complaining habit would presumably be broken. If the wearer broke down and complained about something, then the bracelet was to be transferred to the other wrist. This bold attack on negativity brought Bowen a spread in People magazine and a spot on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Within a few months, his church had given out 4.5 million purple bracelets to people in over eighty countries. He envisions a complaint-free world and boasts that his bracelets have been distributed within schools, prisons, and homeless shelters. There is no word yet on how successful they have been in the latter two settings.
So the claim that acting in a positive way leads to success becomes self-fulfilling, at least in the negative sense that not doing so can lead to more profound forms of failure, such as rejection by employers or even one's fellow worshipers. When the gurus advise dropping "negative" people, they are also issuing a warning: smile and be agreeable, go with the flow--or prepare to be ostracized.
It is not enough, though, to cull the negative people from one's immediate circle of contacts; information about the larger human world must be carefully censored. All the world must be carefully censored. All the motivators and gurus of positivity agree that it is a mistake to read newspapers or watch the news....
...This retreat from the real drama and tragedy of human events is suggestive of a deep helplessness at the core of positive thinking. Why not follow the news? Because, as my informant at the NSA meeting told me, "You can't do anything about it." Braley similary dismisses reports of disasters: "That's negative news that can cause you emotional sadness, but that you can't do anything about." The possibilities of contributing to relief funds, joining an antiwar movement, or lobbying for more humane government policies are not even considered. But at the very least there seems to be an acknowledgement here that no amount of attitude adjustment can make good news out of headlines beginning with "Civilian casualties mount..." or "Famine spreads..."
Of course, if the powers of the mind truly "infinite," one wholdnot have to eliminate negative people from one's life either; one could, for example, simply choose to interpret their behavior in a positive way--maybe he's critizing me for my own good, maybe she's being sullen because she likes me so much and I haven't been attentive, and so on. The advice that you must change your environment--for example, by eliminating negative people and news--is an admission that there may in fact be a "real world" out there that is utterly unaffected by our wishes. In the face of this terrifying possibility, the only "positive" response is to withdraw into one's own carefully constructed world of constant approval and affirmation, nice news and smiling people.
Barbara Ehrenreich, Bright-Sided. pg 55.
Not only does this absurd "positivity" have negative results. The need to do it in the first place strongly suggests that at heart the practitioner has an incredibly negative outlook on the world. It suggests they don't believe problems can be solved and it's best to just pretend like none are present. Just smile and ignore all problems and ignore anyone who isn't doing the same, as what else could possibly be done? Making long term changes are hopeless. Just pretend everything is already fine.
Negative People SUCK!
That may sound harsh, but the fact is that negative people do suck. They suck the energy out of positive people like you and me. They suck the energy and life out of a good company, a good team, a good relationship... Avoid them at all cost. If you have to cut ties with people you've known for a long time because they're actually a negative drain on you, then so be it. Trust me, you're better off without them.
What would it mean in practice to eliminate all the "negative people" from one's life? It might be a good move to separate from a chronically carping spouse, but it is not so easy to abandon the whiny toddler, the colicky infant, or the sullen teenager. And at the workplace, while it's probably advisable to detect and terminate those who show signs of becoming mass killers, there are other annoyin people who might actually have something useful to say: the financial officer who keeps worrying about the bank's subprime mortgage exposure or the auto excutive who questions the company's overinvestment in SUVs and trucks. Purge everyone who "brings you down," and you risk being very lonely or, what is worse, cut off from reality. The challenege of family life, or group life of any kind, is to keep gauging the moods of others, accomodating to their insights, and offering comfort when needed.
But in the world of positive thinking other people are not there to be nurtured or to provide unwelcome reality checks. They are there only to nourish, praise, and affirm. Harsh as this dictum sounds, many ordinary people adopt it as their creed, displaying wall plaques or bumper stickers showing the word "Whining" with a cancel sign through it. There seems to be a massive empathy deficit, which people respond to be withdrawing their own. No one has the time of patience for anyone else's problems.
In mid-2006, a Kansas City pastor put the growing ban on "negativity" into practice, announcing that his church would now be "complaint free." Also, there would be no criticising, gossiping, or sarcasm. To reprogram the congregation, the Reverend Will Bowen distributed purple silicone bracelets that were to be worn as reminders. The goal? Twenty-one complaint-free days, after which the complaining habit would presumably be broken. If the wearer broke down and complained about something, then the bracelet was to be transferred to the other wrist. This bold attack on negativity brought Bowen a spread in People magazine and a spot on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Within a few months, his church had given out 4.5 million purple bracelets to people in over eighty countries. He envisions a complaint-free world and boasts that his bracelets have been distributed within schools, prisons, and homeless shelters. There is no word yet on how successful they have been in the latter two settings.
So the claim that acting in a positive way leads to success becomes self-fulfilling, at least in the negative sense that not doing so can lead to more profound forms of failure, such as rejection by employers or even one's fellow worshipers. When the gurus advise dropping "negative" people, they are also issuing a warning: smile and be agreeable, go with the flow--or prepare to be ostracized.
It is not enough, though, to cull the negative people from one's immediate circle of contacts; information about the larger human world must be carefully censored. All the world must be carefully censored. All the motivators and gurus of positivity agree that it is a mistake to read newspapers or watch the news....
...This retreat from the real drama and tragedy of human events is suggestive of a deep helplessness at the core of positive thinking. Why not follow the news? Because, as my informant at the NSA meeting told me, "You can't do anything about it." Braley similary dismisses reports of disasters: "That's negative news that can cause you emotional sadness, but that you can't do anything about." The possibilities of contributing to relief funds, joining an antiwar movement, or lobbying for more humane government policies are not even considered. But at the very least there seems to be an acknowledgement here that no amount of attitude adjustment can make good news out of headlines beginning with "Civilian casualties mount..." or "Famine spreads..."
Of course, if the powers of the mind truly "infinite," one wholdnot have to eliminate negative people from one's life either; one could, for example, simply choose to interpret their behavior in a positive way--maybe he's critizing me for my own good, maybe she's being sullen because she likes me so much and I haven't been attentive, and so on. The advice that you must change your environment--for example, by eliminating negative people and news--is an admission that there may in fact be a "real world" out there that is utterly unaffected by our wishes. In the face of this terrifying possibility, the only "positive" response is to withdraw into one's own carefully constructed world of constant approval and affirmation, nice news and smiling people.
Barbara Ehrenreich, Bright-Sided. pg 55.
Not only does this absurd "positivity" have negative results. The need to do it in the first place strongly suggests that at heart the practitioner has an incredibly negative outlook on the world. It suggests they don't believe problems can be solved and it's best to just pretend like none are present. Just smile and ignore all problems and ignore anyone who isn't doing the same, as what else could possibly be done? Making long term changes are hopeless. Just pretend everything is already fine.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1_E6pHa3hc
What happened to the good music?!!
(Puberty most likely quit happening. But the music corporation monopoly is increasing....)
--
Figured out a way to apply composing music to writing. In music instead of trying to write that perfect song that will change the world, that will make me famous. Instead of going down that kind of sick industrialized road where there's one artist for hundreds of thousands or millions I've somewhat embraced the random.
The random as opposed to this nebulous word: 'creativity'. Maybe the two can be thought of as opposities. A story, a musical track, the notes, the elements can seem relatively random or they can seem to be the perfect thing which brings it all together in such a useful way.
My music is held back because of worrying about the random. Drums especially. Why am I changing the drums here? Why not just the same repetitive beat the whole way? I'm just randomly making a change.
With the knowledge a thing is totally mindless, totally random, I hold back from bothering. The same issues arises in writing stories except worse. There are so many possibilites. It can't be helped that something random is going on to some extent.
The way forward with music has been simple curiousity. How would certain relatively random elements sound when put together?
Then of course to some extent it's not just random. Things do 'fit' together.
And this curiosity is a short term immediate reward. And there must be an immediate reward.
Same idea holds with writing. Embrace some level of the random. Just be curious about combining certain elements while looking for an immediate reward.
--
I got the swine flu vaccination and the influenza one. Very conflicted about such thiings. Modern medicine is so often just wrong. My sister got the swine flu vaccine and missed a couple days work she was so sick. My coworker also got pretty sick. I got it this morning at 8AM and then slept till now. It's affecting my hands. They're very slightly uncontrollably shaking. Hard to type. Almost like a neuropathy. Like a bad reaction... Oh well. I deserve Indian food today.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Mostly finished moving. It's a beautiful house. Doesn't really feel like mine. One of my speakers blew. But it was free (a nice one too). And coincidentally someone just offered me some other really good speakers.
-
...Saints would maybe have awful humor. Because that which is unexpectedly wrong is funny. So they'd think treating people badly was unexpected? Lady at work is either a saint or just very passive agressive. A year or so back I apparently didn't pull exactly on the count of three for pulling up some lady in bed (someone so light that I could pull up with one hand by myself). For an entire year she then made sure to mention that I couldn't even pull people up in bed, while making it sound like she was just joking around. Everytime I see her she makes some such disaparaging remark as if it's a joke.
Today she says, "I heard all you did all night was watch Tales From The Darkside!" (Haha!) (...How the hell is that even funny?) I worked my effing ass off. I didn't stop moving the first 6 hours I was there. But she makes it sound like she's joking, so defending myself would be inappropriate, but at the same time... like I really did just sit on my ass all night. Every single time it's something like this and I'm getting incredibly fucking tired of her.
This time though the big thing was a doctor told me something that I was afraid might kill a patient. Rather than get into a big argument with an inexperienced doctor, I asked a few experienced nurses what to do and they gave what seemed like good advice. Good advice when not taking into account that this saint/passive agressive lady was my replacement. I don't think it's because she's a saint. It would be nice if such were the case. I'm fatigued at the moment and really sick of her criticisms of the last year or so. In this case she acted as if she couldn't understand what I was asking her to do, the cooperation I was asking and instead put me in the position of potentially getting in huge trouble; acting like she was clueless that she was doing so. And as if not following a doctor's orders was no big deal. There comes a point when where after three days of sleep deprivation and 14 hour work days, when someone's been having a go at you for a year plus where I really want to just tell her off. Ask her if she understands the concept of being passive aggressive, etc.
But there's actually no way at all to even attempt to point out there's any problem with her behavior. A year ago two much more experienced nurses tried to take her aside and give some helpful criticism about her behavior. She's spent the last year smearing them behind their back as a result. And it appears management took her side. At least appears.
I think she probably is just being passive aggressive and doesn't even realize it. One has to somehow try to get along with such people. Or at the least get them to focus on going after someone else. Or you eventually get fired. Management certainly doesn't want to be bothered with the petty little fights. I guess a thing to remember is that it doesn't appear that her constant disparaging remarks have caused (hardly) anyone else to think I'm a bad worker. Although let's see what she does with this latest one. I expect her to try to ruin me. I'll spend my three days off thinking about it.
I would really like to ask her sometime, "Is that supposed to be funny or are you just trying to make it sound funny so that you can get away with constantly criticizing me?"
The other side is that of sainthood.
Say a person has some work stress, issues of being unfairly smeared as a slacker and/or as inept (such issues are in the back of probably every single worker's mind). To relieve such stress you pretend like such issues aren't really expected wrongs. You pretend like they're unexpected and constantly bring them up as if they're jokes to try to help deal with them, negate them.
Except I don't know if you're actually a saint. At times you really don't appear to be one. And more often than not you're not even remotely funny.
Was thinking the position of The Left is thinking the best of others usually. I've tried to do so. Usually I get angry, think negatively of people exactly because they clearly aren't thinking the best of others. The problem is that you leave yourself wide open to be hurt when you're always thinking good of everyone. Is this lady some kind of bizarre passive aggressive person who is trying to ruin me or is she really some kind of saint?
I'm probably just incredibly sleep deprived. Tried a new exercise program. High rep stuff which quickly gets me in better shape. But has caused insomnia. I should have taken some benedryl I guess at least. I'm dead tired. Feel as if I've had about as much as I can stand.
-
...Saints would maybe have awful humor. Because that which is unexpectedly wrong is funny. So they'd think treating people badly was unexpected? Lady at work is either a saint or just very passive agressive. A year or so back I apparently didn't pull exactly on the count of three for pulling up some lady in bed (someone so light that I could pull up with one hand by myself). For an entire year she then made sure to mention that I couldn't even pull people up in bed, while making it sound like she was just joking around. Everytime I see her she makes some such disaparaging remark as if it's a joke.
Today she says, "I heard all you did all night was watch Tales From The Darkside!" (Haha!) (...How the hell is that even funny?) I worked my effing ass off. I didn't stop moving the first 6 hours I was there. But she makes it sound like she's joking, so defending myself would be inappropriate, but at the same time... like I really did just sit on my ass all night. Every single time it's something like this and I'm getting incredibly fucking tired of her.
This time though the big thing was a doctor told me something that I was afraid might kill a patient. Rather than get into a big argument with an inexperienced doctor, I asked a few experienced nurses what to do and they gave what seemed like good advice. Good advice when not taking into account that this saint/passive agressive lady was my replacement. I don't think it's because she's a saint. It would be nice if such were the case. I'm fatigued at the moment and really sick of her criticisms of the last year or so. In this case she acted as if she couldn't understand what I was asking her to do, the cooperation I was asking and instead put me in the position of potentially getting in huge trouble; acting like she was clueless that she was doing so. And as if not following a doctor's orders was no big deal. There comes a point when where after three days of sleep deprivation and 14 hour work days, when someone's been having a go at you for a year plus where I really want to just tell her off. Ask her if she understands the concept of being passive aggressive, etc.
But there's actually no way at all to even attempt to point out there's any problem with her behavior. A year ago two much more experienced nurses tried to take her aside and give some helpful criticism about her behavior. She's spent the last year smearing them behind their back as a result. And it appears management took her side. At least appears.
I think she probably is just being passive aggressive and doesn't even realize it. One has to somehow try to get along with such people. Or at the least get them to focus on going after someone else. Or you eventually get fired. Management certainly doesn't want to be bothered with the petty little fights. I guess a thing to remember is that it doesn't appear that her constant disparaging remarks have caused (hardly) anyone else to think I'm a bad worker. Although let's see what she does with this latest one. I expect her to try to ruin me. I'll spend my three days off thinking about it.
I would really like to ask her sometime, "Is that supposed to be funny or are you just trying to make it sound funny so that you can get away with constantly criticizing me?"
The other side is that of sainthood.
Say a person has some work stress, issues of being unfairly smeared as a slacker and/or as inept (such issues are in the back of probably every single worker's mind). To relieve such stress you pretend like such issues aren't really expected wrongs. You pretend like they're unexpected and constantly bring them up as if they're jokes to try to help deal with them, negate them.
Except I don't know if you're actually a saint. At times you really don't appear to be one. And more often than not you're not even remotely funny.
Was thinking the position of The Left is thinking the best of others usually. I've tried to do so. Usually I get angry, think negatively of people exactly because they clearly aren't thinking the best of others. The problem is that you leave yourself wide open to be hurt when you're always thinking good of everyone. Is this lady some kind of bizarre passive aggressive person who is trying to ruin me or is she really some kind of saint?
I'm probably just incredibly sleep deprived. Tried a new exercise program. High rep stuff which quickly gets me in better shape. But has caused insomnia. I should have taken some benedryl I guess at least. I'm dead tired. Feel as if I've had about as much as I can stand.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Once I thought of a certain person that: 'if the truth took two sentences and a lie would take one, he'd lie.' Even about trivial stuff he was constantly lying. It occurs to me it could be that he was just (and is) uncomfortable with speaking much. And also perhaps not so good with words. So he tries to keep things very short. And that perhaps he's got enough fear/nervousness in him that it causes him to say really stupid things.
Perhaps I incorrectly thought he was 'evil'? And thus in return was fearful of him and thus somewhat indifferent?
---
In regard to a recent email was also thinking somewhat related that perhaps this is the main cause of indifference, that people are too busy being afraid, too busy being suspicious, fearful, too busy erring on the side of selfish caution, and thus just simply avoid others.
Over and over again I can look at indifference and see this at it's heart. Which is to say again, that it simply takes strong/happy people to be compassionate. Where 'strong' and 'happy' mean about the same thing.
Where someone can be rich and 'successful', have tons of 'friends', have great health and even seemingly be happy (to some extent...?), yet be full of suspicion of others and thus indifferent and even hateful.
And so then the obvious thing to do is to try to reduce their fear, their suspicions, and to somehow make them 'stronger' and 'happier'. The end result being that they can manage to find more time to have concern for others instead of being selfish. (This as opposed to the zombie basis for compassion. The too far future. What a good blog title that was.) The end result also being they become wiser perhaps? And thus don't need to err quite so far towards selfish caution.
But it means that at times two seemingly contradictory things must be done. You must manage to truly show them that you want them personally to be happy while at the same time making very clear that you disagree with their actions. Successfully doing that is so difficult because their suspicion gage will go into the red the moment you express any disagreement.
Perhaps I incorrectly thought he was 'evil'? And thus in return was fearful of him and thus somewhat indifferent?
---
In regard to a recent email was also thinking somewhat related that perhaps this is the main cause of indifference, that people are too busy being afraid, too busy being suspicious, fearful, too busy erring on the side of selfish caution, and thus just simply avoid others.
Over and over again I can look at indifference and see this at it's heart. Which is to say again, that it simply takes strong/happy people to be compassionate. Where 'strong' and 'happy' mean about the same thing.
Where someone can be rich and 'successful', have tons of 'friends', have great health and even seemingly be happy (to some extent...?), yet be full of suspicion of others and thus indifferent and even hateful.
And so then the obvious thing to do is to try to reduce their fear, their suspicions, and to somehow make them 'stronger' and 'happier'. The end result being that they can manage to find more time to have concern for others instead of being selfish. (This as opposed to the zombie basis for compassion. The too far future. What a good blog title that was.) The end result also being they become wiser perhaps? And thus don't need to err quite so far towards selfish caution.
But it means that at times two seemingly contradictory things must be done. You must manage to truly show them that you want them personally to be happy while at the same time making very clear that you disagree with their actions. Successfully doing that is so difficult because their suspicion gage will go into the red the moment you express any disagreement.
Friday, October 16, 2009
What way to cure indifference?
Should we shower love and compassion on indifferent people?
In this way can we show them what it's like to live in a world where people are something other than indifferent to each other?
But what of the hate usually mixed in? What when their indifference is also tied into suspicions of evil all around them? When they perceive evil they respond with hateful actions and cause harm, how should we then respond?
The same. We respond still with love and compassion even when they hurt us exactly to show that their perception that we're evil is simply wrong.
Against this though is the worry that we're thus letting them get away with the hurt that they've caused. That instead of punishing them for their harmful actions were basically sending a message that they can get away with such actions.
But we already know that a world based on punishment and force doesn't work so very well.
Whether it's hate or indifference or a mixture of both (and indifference is the worse of the two) we should respond with love and compassion. At the same time we still need to try to somehow speak out and say when an action (or lack thereof) is causing harm.
This is complicated. Because speaking out may likely mean they'll think you wish them harm. They'll think you're 'attacking' them. To both speak out against their actions and to still love them and truly try to make their life better is something between difficult and impossible.
In this industrial society if you ever speak out against someone's actions you're immediately someone who should just go away. There's millions living in some proximity of one another. Those who have any disagreement have no reason to have anything to do with one another.
In this industrial society there's no reasons to bother caring about the welfare of people. To show such love and compassion in and of itself is considered strange.
In this industrial society there's no reasons to bother trying to work through disagreements.
The system is setup so that what should be done is basically impossible. But still, to what extent it can be done, it must be done.
Should we shower love and compassion on indifferent people?
In this way can we show them what it's like to live in a world where people are something other than indifferent to each other?
But what of the hate usually mixed in? What when their indifference is also tied into suspicions of evil all around them? When they perceive evil they respond with hateful actions and cause harm, how should we then respond?
The same. We respond still with love and compassion even when they hurt us exactly to show that their perception that we're evil is simply wrong.
Against this though is the worry that we're thus letting them get away with the hurt that they've caused. That instead of punishing them for their harmful actions were basically sending a message that they can get away with such actions.
But we already know that a world based on punishment and force doesn't work so very well.
Whether it's hate or indifference or a mixture of both (and indifference is the worse of the two) we should respond with love and compassion. At the same time we still need to try to somehow speak out and say when an action (or lack thereof) is causing harm.
This is complicated. Because speaking out may likely mean they'll think you wish them harm. They'll think you're 'attacking' them. To both speak out against their actions and to still love them and truly try to make their life better is something between difficult and impossible.
In this industrial society if you ever speak out against someone's actions you're immediately someone who should just go away. There's millions living in some proximity of one another. Those who have any disagreement have no reason to have anything to do with one another.
In this industrial society there's no reasons to bother caring about the welfare of people. To show such love and compassion in and of itself is considered strange.
In this industrial society there's no reasons to bother trying to work through disagreements.
The system is setup so that what should be done is basically impossible. But still, to what extent it can be done, it must be done.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A: But you can't make the world a better place unless you are critical of it. You can't make it a better place unless you first identify the things that are wrong with it.
B: But you can by just immediately believing everything's basically fine.
A: That's an incredibly short sighted solution. It's what someone would do who didn't look very far into the future.
B: It's what a person would do who is capable of enjoying themselves right now. Those who can't have no real choice but to forever focus on some distant future that will never arrive.
B: But you can by just immediately believing everything's basically fine.
A: That's an incredibly short sighted solution. It's what someone would do who didn't look very far into the future.
B: It's what a person would do who is capable of enjoying themselves right now. Those who can't have no real choice but to forever focus on some distant future that will never arrive.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Heart of Stalking???
Trying to change you though (make you something other than indifferent) is I think the main question of humankind. So to sit and ponder and ponder and wonder what miracle it would take doesn't seem to be really that much of a waste of time.
Would be good if I had some idea what the particulars are here though.
Do you know what suffering you're causing and just not care?
Do you think I'm not actually suffering?
Do you think it's some kind of bizarre trick and that actually I'm some kind of evil person?
Do you think there's actually nothing at all you can do to stop my suffering? I'm just nuts (go see a 'professional', you just need a happy pill)? Or that it would take waaay too much on your part to stop it?
Which one of the above errors, or which combination, are you making?
There are types of people that think when they disagree with someone, the thing to do is simply say nothing and suddenly cut all ties with the person.
Why?
Because they believe the way everyone acts is set in stone?
Because they project their own incredible closemindedness on everyone else?
Or because they don't understand what the heck is going on in their own head well enough to explain what it is they aren't liking/disagree about?
Because there's so many millions of people living in close proximity and yet at the same time conveniently shut off from one another that we can let a few float in and then pass on by and it really doesn't even matter? They're interchangeable? Concepts like community and friendship are so 16th century?
Because actually, other than a spouse, 'friends' today are just the people you work with for a year or so till one of you moves to a new job?
Because we really don't have any meaningful concrete connection? There aren't any crops we're growing together; no village we're defending?
Because they're evil?
All it would take is appearing to give a shit about the lives of your fellow human beings. Just attempting to explain whatever in the world you're thinking.
And what would it take for that to happen?
The assumption of good on my part. Not perfect. Making mistakes. But not meaning anything bad. Not trying at all to cause harm. The assumption that of course there is a worthwhile human being here.
With that assumption, then just simply having explained yourself in the first place, instead of what you did.
But that's not what you are, that's not what the world is. (You = World, symbolic. Like it or not, you've represented it perfectly). You and everyone else doesn't make that assumption. You and everyone else errs on the side of not getting taken advantage of. And the weaker and stupider people are, the farther they err in that direction. They find ways to suspect, to believe, the other is evil.
Or they find no way to not be indifferent.
And thus the world is a sort of dystopia.
---
And then there is punishment of the evildoer, etc, in a great big neverending circle.
---
My gawd my music kicks ass.
---
I went to work the other night despite my back being so messed up I could hardly stand erect. The first 8 hours were hell. Of course I got pulled to another unit for the very first time. I knew the evil god who's (or I'm Job) torturing me would make sure on this night when my back hurt so bad I'd get pulled and have a difficult assignment. Possible dilantin infiltrations, endless people with so many tubes coming out of them it was very difficult to keep it all straight. And I'm hobbling around like Igor. Perfect.
Then I drank a bottle of OJ. Regretably I don't hardly ever eat fruit or even drink fruit juice. I drank the bottle of OJ and within an hour I was walking normally without any pain. This after my back being so messed up for the previous 5 days. Hmpf.
Surely there was more to it than the OJ but it reminds me (yet again) that I really ought to make sure to consume a little fruit each day.
---
What was it? ? ? ? ? ? Ghost idealism
Imagine a large tribe of elves in the woods (by elves I mean 'good humans') that are defeated by an army of orcs (bad humans)(notice 'good' was in quotes but not 'bad', as it's maybe not actually possible for anyone to be good but bad is easy enough).
The elves are defeated and made slaves (because they're not as aggressive and being aggressive more than makes up for stupidity). The pretty elven women that survive exist as sex things. The people who survive in general are slaves.
But the orces are way too crude to not have a meritocracy. If you embrace their ways you can move up and someday be a powerful man amongst them.
Three elves. One on seeing the women raped attacks the orcs, knowing full well he'll be killed and indeed he is killed.
He's an idealist.
The second one sees it and is sickened but does nothing to stop it. He does as he's told and spends his life as a slave. Never attempting to effect any change.
He's a ghost idealist.
The third elf embraces their ways. He seemingly learns to think a bit of rape is all in good fun. Slavery's just how life is, etc. He becomes a powerful man and enacts some few rules regulating slavery.
One could say the first man was a coward; that he couldn't bear to continue living. One could say the second man, the ghost idealist, is another type of coward; by being an idealist he is making himself partially not really here at all. He's making sure he'll never accomplish anything and actually need not even ever really try. One could say the third man is the one responding the best.
One could look at it all another way whereby this makes no sense.
One could instead make the pragmatist spend his life in a most awful way where every moment is horror just to in the end see himself and his race die out.
It's a question of degree but humans don't really do degrees well. Should be some kind of way to take questions of degrees and respin them so that we can consistently hold on to highly nuanced positions over the long term and even in our 'reflex' thinking.
---
What was that? ? Ghost Idealism and what was the other? ? I imagine it was some really amazing thing. But I remember that it wasn't actually. It's really just I have nothing to say and I'm saying it (the entire blog). But this one bit that was forgotten has such mystery now. I can put it on a pedestal as a great thought to worship. To love.
Would be good if I had some idea what the particulars are here though.
Do you know what suffering you're causing and just not care?
Do you think I'm not actually suffering?
Do you think it's some kind of bizarre trick and that actually I'm some kind of evil person?
Do you think there's actually nothing at all you can do to stop my suffering? I'm just nuts (go see a 'professional', you just need a happy pill)? Or that it would take waaay too much on your part to stop it?
Which one of the above errors, or which combination, are you making?
There are types of people that think when they disagree with someone, the thing to do is simply say nothing and suddenly cut all ties with the person.
Why?
Because they believe the way everyone acts is set in stone?
Because they project their own incredible closemindedness on everyone else?
Or because they don't understand what the heck is going on in their own head well enough to explain what it is they aren't liking/disagree about?
Because there's so many millions of people living in close proximity and yet at the same time conveniently shut off from one another that we can let a few float in and then pass on by and it really doesn't even matter? They're interchangeable? Concepts like community and friendship are so 16th century?
Because actually, other than a spouse, 'friends' today are just the people you work with for a year or so till one of you moves to a new job?
Because we really don't have any meaningful concrete connection? There aren't any crops we're growing together; no village we're defending?
Because they're evil?
All it would take is appearing to give a shit about the lives of your fellow human beings. Just attempting to explain whatever in the world you're thinking.
And what would it take for that to happen?
The assumption of good on my part. Not perfect. Making mistakes. But not meaning anything bad. Not trying at all to cause harm. The assumption that of course there is a worthwhile human being here.
With that assumption, then just simply having explained yourself in the first place, instead of what you did.
But that's not what you are, that's not what the world is. (You = World, symbolic. Like it or not, you've represented it perfectly). You and everyone else doesn't make that assumption. You and everyone else errs on the side of not getting taken advantage of. And the weaker and stupider people are, the farther they err in that direction. They find ways to suspect, to believe, the other is evil.
Or they find no way to not be indifferent.
And thus the world is a sort of dystopia.
---
And then there is punishment of the evildoer, etc, in a great big neverending circle.
---
My gawd my music kicks ass.
---
I went to work the other night despite my back being so messed up I could hardly stand erect. The first 8 hours were hell. Of course I got pulled to another unit for the very first time. I knew the evil god who's (or I'm Job) torturing me would make sure on this night when my back hurt so bad I'd get pulled and have a difficult assignment. Possible dilantin infiltrations, endless people with so many tubes coming out of them it was very difficult to keep it all straight. And I'm hobbling around like Igor. Perfect.
Then I drank a bottle of OJ. Regretably I don't hardly ever eat fruit or even drink fruit juice. I drank the bottle of OJ and within an hour I was walking normally without any pain. This after my back being so messed up for the previous 5 days. Hmpf.
Surely there was more to it than the OJ but it reminds me (yet again) that I really ought to make sure to consume a little fruit each day.
---
What was it? ? ? ? ? ? Ghost idealism
Imagine a large tribe of elves in the woods (by elves I mean 'good humans') that are defeated by an army of orcs (bad humans)(notice 'good' was in quotes but not 'bad', as it's maybe not actually possible for anyone to be good but bad is easy enough).
The elves are defeated and made slaves (because they're not as aggressive and being aggressive more than makes up for stupidity). The pretty elven women that survive exist as sex things. The people who survive in general are slaves.
But the orces are way too crude to not have a meritocracy. If you embrace their ways you can move up and someday be a powerful man amongst them.
Three elves. One on seeing the women raped attacks the orcs, knowing full well he'll be killed and indeed he is killed.
He's an idealist.
The second one sees it and is sickened but does nothing to stop it. He does as he's told and spends his life as a slave. Never attempting to effect any change.
He's a ghost idealist.
The third elf embraces their ways. He seemingly learns to think a bit of rape is all in good fun. Slavery's just how life is, etc. He becomes a powerful man and enacts some few rules regulating slavery.
One could say the first man was a coward; that he couldn't bear to continue living. One could say the second man, the ghost idealist, is another type of coward; by being an idealist he is making himself partially not really here at all. He's making sure he'll never accomplish anything and actually need not even ever really try. One could say the third man is the one responding the best.
One could look at it all another way whereby this makes no sense.
One could instead make the pragmatist spend his life in a most awful way where every moment is horror just to in the end see himself and his race die out.
It's a question of degree but humans don't really do degrees well. Should be some kind of way to take questions of degrees and respin them so that we can consistently hold on to highly nuanced positions over the long term and even in our 'reflex' thinking.
---
What was that? ? Ghost Idealism and what was the other? ? I imagine it was some really amazing thing. But I remember that it wasn't actually. It's really just I have nothing to say and I'm saying it (the entire blog). But this one bit that was forgotten has such mystery now. I can put it on a pedestal as a great thought to worship. To love.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
It may seem ridiculous to start talking about inventing things when yur talking about things you don't know crap about (the arrogance of youth, the simple stupidity..., etc). But well, nothing wrong with getting initial thoughts down before getting stuck into the established track.
Harrison must be doing something else with his justly tuned piano. Have to read up some more I guess.
I read Guy Gavriel Kay's viking fantasy, something about Light of the Sun... title made no sense relative to the book that I could see. I've read half of another titled Prospero's Children. And part of that Gene Wolfe ancient Greece book.
None of these people know how to properly tell a story. OTOH Robin Hobb is king. I shall attempt to start putting together a story/ies keeping Hobb's expert writing in mind.
I've spent the last 4 days laid up with I guess back spasms. Not too painful but I can't stand up straight and can hardly walk (not too painful unless I try to stand up straight). The worst part is just watching the time pass by, praying I'll have healed enough to go work for 14 hours (on my feet probably a good 5) on Monday night. I already called off for Friday night. If I call off Monday night that will be two call offs. We get 5 for an entire year. At which point we receive a written infraction (whatever that means). Fired at 11.
Which is absurd. It's a hospital by the way. This means people routinely come to work sick and spread their diseases to their patients. It should be against the law to have such a policy about sick days at a hospital. It is a threat to the public's health.
It's not as big a deal for me as I usually go years at a time without catching colds or flus. But the back thing worries me. It seems to be an increasingly chronic problem. Will have to start taking additional steps to try to fix this problem. But it seems to follow no rhyme or reason...
I don't think sitting in a chair is really a good idea so for now I lay in bed praying I'll heal enough to handle work Monday night. It's not looking like I'll quite be better enough that I should attempt such a thing. I suppose I could get out my old laptop and try to outline some kind of template while I lay in bed...
At some point I need to actually truly begin the writing. I hold back almost as if I think my real life hasn't yet started.
--
I think Michael Harrison's justly toned piano is beautiful by the way. There is perhaps something positive to be said for the extra dissonance along with the extra consonance.
Despite going off into dissonance there still seems to be something limited about the songs he's written with it though. (Also the pounding repetitive dissonant tone clouds of song 4 and 10 are kind of awful.) If one stayed in consonance, just intonation IS limited. With Harrison, I think he's still staying enough within it (it still sounds like music) that it is limited. I want though to experiment with the same tuning next and see if it is indeed limited. Probably so.
Limited or not, when working instead with VST technology it might make more sense to add many additional tones to the standard 12 to potentially remove dissonance from the just intonation (so you had a choice). So for example, having a second D note that was tuned to be consonant (1.5/1) with the originally justly tuned A note, etc. Although this concept taken all the way could mean a huge scale. One could instead limit this scale somewhat, maybe just tripling it for example to add more possibility, if indeed the justly toned 12 is as limited (although beautiful) as it appears in Harrison's work.
This does appear to come back somewhat to the justonic concept. Although is a combination of the two and was thinking might be easier or lazier to not actually bother with justonic and instead just make a separate scala file that added additional... secondary D, E notes, etc.
But there are all kinds of additional issues. Does one retune the additional notes based on the triad or the fifth, etc? There is no answer really. Would depend on each individual song. Would be very complicated.
About the justonic: I don't even think the justonic really makes all that much sense either. You play for example a C/E/G chord, then a D/F/A followed by a E/G/B chord in succession. In just intonation the first is perfect consonance, the following two are dissonant. But using the justonic, say where it used the lowest note as the root, all would be consonant, but the last G would be a different G than the first.
What this is to say, is that the step up by the middle note would be different than the step up by the bottom note... I think this in and of itself is similar to the issue of dissonance. I need to hear extended music written with justonic. I think it would have a vertigo-like effect.
None of these people know how to properly tell a story. OTOH Robin Hobb is king. I shall attempt to start putting together a story/ies keeping Hobb's expert writing in mind.
I've spent the last 4 days laid up with I guess back spasms. Not too painful but I can't stand up straight and can hardly walk (not too painful unless I try to stand up straight). The worst part is just watching the time pass by, praying I'll have healed enough to go work for 14 hours (on my feet probably a good 5) on Monday night. I already called off for Friday night. If I call off Monday night that will be two call offs. We get 5 for an entire year. At which point we receive a written infraction (whatever that means). Fired at 11.
Which is absurd. It's a hospital by the way. This means people routinely come to work sick and spread their diseases to their patients. It should be against the law to have such a policy about sick days at a hospital. It is a threat to the public's health.
It's not as big a deal for me as I usually go years at a time without catching colds or flus. But the back thing worries me. It seems to be an increasingly chronic problem. Will have to start taking additional steps to try to fix this problem. But it seems to follow no rhyme or reason...
I don't think sitting in a chair is really a good idea so for now I lay in bed praying I'll heal enough to handle work Monday night. It's not looking like I'll quite be better enough that I should attempt such a thing. I suppose I could get out my old laptop and try to outline some kind of template while I lay in bed...
At some point I need to actually truly begin the writing. I hold back almost as if I think my real life hasn't yet started.
--
I think Michael Harrison's justly toned piano is beautiful by the way. There is perhaps something positive to be said for the extra dissonance along with the extra consonance.
Despite going off into dissonance there still seems to be something limited about the songs he's written with it though. (Also the pounding repetitive dissonant tone clouds of song 4 and 10 are kind of awful.) If one stayed in consonance, just intonation IS limited. With Harrison, I think he's still staying enough within it (it still sounds like music) that it is limited. I want though to experiment with the same tuning next and see if it is indeed limited. Probably so.
Limited or not, when working instead with VST technology it might make more sense to add many additional tones to the standard 12 to potentially remove dissonance from the just intonation (so you had a choice). So for example, having a second D note that was tuned to be consonant (1.5/1) with the originally justly tuned A note, etc. Although this concept taken all the way could mean a huge scale. One could instead limit this scale somewhat, maybe just tripling it for example to add more possibility, if indeed the justly toned 12 is as limited (although beautiful) as it appears in Harrison's work.
This does appear to come back somewhat to the justonic concept. Although is a combination of the two and was thinking might be easier or lazier to not actually bother with justonic and instead just make a separate scala file that added additional... secondary D, E notes, etc.
But there are all kinds of additional issues. Does one retune the additional notes based on the triad or the fifth, etc? There is no answer really. Would depend on each individual song. Would be very complicated.
About the justonic: I don't even think the justonic really makes all that much sense either. You play for example a C/E/G chord, then a D/F/A followed by a E/G/B chord in succession. In just intonation the first is perfect consonance, the following two are dissonant. But using the justonic, say where it used the lowest note as the root, all would be consonant, but the last G would be a different G than the first.
What this is to say, is that the step up by the middle note would be different than the step up by the bottom note... I think this in and of itself is similar to the issue of dissonance. I need to hear extended music written with justonic. I think it would have a vertigo-like effect.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
While 3/2 is assoclated with power, 5/4 is more expressive of sentiment and emotion. To my ear, these qualities of the primes show up to some extent in combined intervals; for example, the included interval 5/3 (a "major sixth") seems to convey some "fiveness" and some "threeness." This would imply that the character of any just interval includes expression of the prime factors that make it up. Of course, all this is highly subjective.
In early times the interval 5/4 was considered discordant; its acceptance as consonant came centuries after 3/2 gained popularity. Then it became firmly established as an essential component of traditional triadic harmony.
http://www.redshift.com/~dcanright/harmser/
Power versus a more nuanced expression of differing feelings. Sort of like forcing people in line versus actually using reason and communicating their differences. Originally the 5/4 sounded discordant but as the ears spent time hearing it became 'musical'. With time a much larger and discordant scale could become acceptable. Would such routinely listened to by an entire society influence the actions in the same direction?
justonic and long explanation of just intonation
http://www.justonic.com/demos.html
Do I really care? Not sure.
These commas exist only outside the confines of the twelve notes tones of equal temperament. In fact, tempered tunings were developed over the past four hundred years precisely to avoid the commas that are heard whenever music with moderately complex harmonies is played in just intonation. I have discovered that incorporating the commas into the harmonic fabric of my music frees it from the need for tempered tunings and opens up a new approach to tonality.-Michael Harrison (as opposed to justonic)
Throughout the history of Western classical music there has been a gradual evolution from the use of relatively wide and consonant intervals to increasingly narrow and more dissonant sounding intervals. For example, organum, early two-part music that developed from the 9th to 12th centuries, used the consonant open sounding intervals of perfect fourths, fifths and octaves. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the relatively dissonant intervals of seconds, thirds, and sevenths were interwoven into the polyphonic fabric of the music, which was still organized contrapuntally as opposed to tonally. At the beginning of the 18th century, music began to be formally organized around tonal centers. As major, minor, and other key relationships developed, it became essential to create a tuning system that permitted moving easily between different key centers. In the 19th century, the evolution of even more complex chromaticism resulted in stretching tonal harmony to its limits. In the 20th century, Schoenberg’s concept of “emancipation of dissonance” led to the free use of any interval combination in equal temperament. I propose that this evolution is still in progress, and that its next stage is the “emancipation of the comma.”etc...
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Two things:
A problem with modern society is that to an extent, you feel like you're in a constant battle with the other people around you. Your boss isn't on your side. Everyday you go to work there is the potential of life altering conflict which is ultimately not really in your control. Your company could simply decide to downsize. Through some misunderstanding some idiot with power over you could suddenly decide to destroy. At any time you can be ruined. And you try and try to worry about such things. All, usually, while being stuck in a situation where you can't actually do anything.
And at the same time you then go home in your metal box to your stone or wood box and are otherwise highly isolated.
In comparison, go back to a 'simpler' lifestyle. A farming community. Each ...group/family is relatively self sufficient, which is to say, they go out and plant the seeds, etc and survive off that basis. It really isn't that difficult. There isn't the (at least I surmise) potential of life altering conflict with people who essentially have total power over you on a daily basis.
I read once that actually they had to work so much harder on farms and we're living in luxury today in comparison. This isn't really true. Scott Nearing went off into the wilderness and carved out a good life (he wrote a book called Living the Good Life) for 50 plus years; living to be 100. He said they worked for four hours a day. And this work again, was not the stressful stuff it is in our modern society.
Humans aren't meant to have so much stress on a daily basis. Perhaps occasionally. From evolution there had to be occasional conflicts, fights, tribal wars. But what we have today instead ruins health. Causes unhappiness. Causes mental illnesses. Despite attempts by the sick psychiatry system to make mental illness sound like it's genetic in origin, we know for example that the rate for schizophrenia is much higher in big cities. Why this is I can't say for sure. Perhaps people have hypothesized it's from excessive pollutants? I think though it could just be people put in more stressful situations, more often having to deal with other people, whom they don't consider on the same 'side' and thus instead have to deal with as potential threats. Endless potential threats, more stress, slowly wearing them down.
There would still be conflict in a society where people were more self sufficient. There would still be stress. But it seems it wouldn't need to be such a consistent daily thing.
There is then furthermore the potential isolating factors of all the technology we use. Sitting alone in the dark in front of the TV with what little free time we have (and we have too little free time, we're hardly only working 4 hours a day like Nearing). And the fact we live in one place and then spend half our waking time at some other place far away where we're usually around no one who lives where we actually live.
And so on. All of which isn't to say going back to an agrarian lifestyle would mean instant utopia. I'm sure it's very possible for that to be miserable. But I think we could recognize that from such a lifestyle which is more suitable for the psychology of man and try to incorporate it into how we're living.
-
So many books have characters who are in effect caricatures. I think, in a way, this is not a bad thing perhaps. It is maybe kind of like more generalized efforts to take complex human interactions and simplify them into something that is more easily understandable (while not totally losing all truth in the simplification process). And such books with antagonists that stray in the direction of being two dimensional. And in general characters that just aren't as complex as real life people, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It maybe can serve the same purpose in a way.
A problem with modern society is that to an extent, you feel like you're in a constant battle with the other people around you. Your boss isn't on your side. Everyday you go to work there is the potential of life altering conflict which is ultimately not really in your control. Your company could simply decide to downsize. Through some misunderstanding some idiot with power over you could suddenly decide to destroy. At any time you can be ruined. And you try and try to worry about such things. All, usually, while being stuck in a situation where you can't actually do anything.
And at the same time you then go home in your metal box to your stone or wood box and are otherwise highly isolated.
In comparison, go back to a 'simpler' lifestyle. A farming community. Each ...group/family is relatively self sufficient, which is to say, they go out and plant the seeds, etc and survive off that basis. It really isn't that difficult. There isn't the (at least I surmise) potential of life altering conflict with people who essentially have total power over you on a daily basis.
I read once that actually they had to work so much harder on farms and we're living in luxury today in comparison. This isn't really true. Scott Nearing went off into the wilderness and carved out a good life (he wrote a book called Living the Good Life) for 50 plus years; living to be 100. He said they worked for four hours a day. And this work again, was not the stressful stuff it is in our modern society.
Humans aren't meant to have so much stress on a daily basis. Perhaps occasionally. From evolution there had to be occasional conflicts, fights, tribal wars. But what we have today instead ruins health. Causes unhappiness. Causes mental illnesses. Despite attempts by the sick psychiatry system to make mental illness sound like it's genetic in origin, we know for example that the rate for schizophrenia is much higher in big cities. Why this is I can't say for sure. Perhaps people have hypothesized it's from excessive pollutants? I think though it could just be people put in more stressful situations, more often having to deal with other people, whom they don't consider on the same 'side' and thus instead have to deal with as potential threats. Endless potential threats, more stress, slowly wearing them down.
There would still be conflict in a society where people were more self sufficient. There would still be stress. But it seems it wouldn't need to be such a consistent daily thing.
There is then furthermore the potential isolating factors of all the technology we use. Sitting alone in the dark in front of the TV with what little free time we have (and we have too little free time, we're hardly only working 4 hours a day like Nearing). And the fact we live in one place and then spend half our waking time at some other place far away where we're usually around no one who lives where we actually live.
And so on. All of which isn't to say going back to an agrarian lifestyle would mean instant utopia. I'm sure it's very possible for that to be miserable. But I think we could recognize that from such a lifestyle which is more suitable for the psychology of man and try to incorporate it into how we're living.
-
So many books have characters who are in effect caricatures. I think, in a way, this is not a bad thing perhaps. It is maybe kind of like more generalized efforts to take complex human interactions and simplify them into something that is more easily understandable (while not totally losing all truth in the simplification process). And such books with antagonists that stray in the direction of being two dimensional. And in general characters that just aren't as complex as real life people, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It maybe can serve the same purpose in a way.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Me and my wife just had a laughing contest. Each person stares at the other until one person genuinely laughs. Good fun.
-
Thought of a music video where the visual image would be that of one insect eating another alive (or should it be multiple examples?). What would the music sound like that went with it?
Real live monsters doing the most unspeakable acts to each other... It's like they're some kind of humorous psudeo subtle reminder by the way. What if instead they looked just like human beings (but still seemed relatively mindless) and there were chainsaw wielding species that went around killing and eating damsel in distress species?
There's something Phillip K. Dick about them but worse. He was mostly just losing reality. What if reality was not only being lost, but was being replaced by some other reality? What if you had suspicions the more realistic way of seeing the world was actually quite horrible and you had these tiny little monsters around you, which you're supposed to just ignore, which are constantly eating each other alive. In literaure, such things can almost serve as foreshadowing, or symbolism for the 'reality' of the situation in the story.
You can imagine a world where these bugs were the size of humans. Imagine say a battlefield of ants. Attacking a dying boring bee. It's not dead yet but they're already eating it alive. To be down in such a world is a nightmare world. No matter you're an entomologist and 'love' insects. They're eating each other alive constantly. They have extremely short life spans. They're often such mindless and yet highly specialized killing machines.
That they're so tiny is humorous. They're all around us. We're supposed to just ignore them and focus on Jesus or whatever as we sludge through our days. But there they are, sometimes there's minature flying monsters on my computer screen at this time of day. They're in effect saying, "Hey, guess what? Guess what the truth is of this world?" But we just ignore this other reality which is right on top of our own reality.
But at the same time they seem a beautiful miracle. That life can be so diverse. The boring bees on my porch would always get right up in my face. I like bees. How can such things exist? Have life?
-
What about a fictitious story that began in 1933 Germany, but then consisted of a way that the Jews managed to get the Nazi's past all that ugliness and they all learned to love one another instead? What in the world would it have taken to make that happen instead?
-
I have bicuspid aortic valve. I've known this for almost 30 years. I finally bothered to research it on the internet this week. I won't go into the complicated reasons I never did before. Apparently the last few doctors I've seen the last 5 or 6 years didn't have a clue. Apparently I really shouldn't be doing any heavy weight lifting or sprinting/jumping as both raise my blood pressure too much. Such is what I was originally told as a child. Was told I shouldn't even run. And that I would have to have open heart surgery before the age of 15.
But I had no pain, or symptoms at all when I ran and played. Just sharp pains when I was sitting around doing nothing. And I was so full of energy to run around and play. It was too much to do to such a kid. My parents even agreed. So we ignored the doctors advice. And I did everything. Including boxing (beat two state champions), powerlifting (even got third place in a big tournament once in the 242 class), general very heavy weight lifting (have done a chinup with an extra 140 pounds attached to me at 220 pounds bodyweight), basketball (could do a 360 two hand slam), run very long distances (although like a snail on that one), etc.
Through all such things never had any chest pain, thus figured the doctors were FOS. ...but here and there always had very sharp pains right over top my heart, thus I still worried I might keel over at any moment...
I finally quit worrying about it a few years ago on one doctor's advice, who said they now know such exercise makes no difference. And the pain I described couldn't possibly be the result of anything wrong with my heart. Probably some unimportant lung issue... A great weight off my shoulders...
Then even those sharp pains I'd had all my life went away.
But now, a new feeling has come. A strange fluttering feeling in my chest. Which caused me to finally use the damm internet and research my condition.
Now I see she didn't know what she was talking about. (Or perhaps figured lying would be better for me?)
I apparently really shouldn't be doing any heavy weight lifting. Or sprinting.
It appears I really have to be a wimp from now on. I have to live as if I'm broken.
And still chances are good I'll have to have my chest cracked open within the next 20 years.
-
Treated like hell at work this morning. It's actually hard enough I think to work one's ass off for 12 hours without then getting quizzed on every little irrelevant detail of each patient and then treated like shit if you can't remember each 100 of those new facts you could be attempting to memorize about each new set of patients.
No, I don't remember off the top of my head (of course it is all written down) the exact diameter of each patient's pupils when each patient doesn't even have anything wrong with their eyes, etc. My one boss tells me to just treat each report like a quiz. She's kind of a dumbass. The unfortunate thing about work is that both my bosses are... straying in that direction. Somehow, so far, they like me. But they ruin people's morale by telling them such things, to treat every single day at work as if there will be a big quiz at the end, that each day, after 12 hours, at which point you're exhausted, now take a test on every little thing you just did. I hope you were concentrating on every little endless unimportant detail. I hope you memorized it all. Now after you've reported it. Dump it. And memorize another endless string of useless info the next day. Repeat for 20 years until you suddenly get fired 6 months before retirement (which I've heard of happening quite often.)
The way I was treated today... it seemed like a setup. Don't want to go into the ugly details. Anyway afterwards I could look down at my chest and through my clothes I could count my heartbeats by sight. Treated in such a manner after working my ass off. 52 hours in the last 4 days. Such is life. Hopefully I'll be able to run myself through the ground trying to help, help, help people for a few decades before someone destroys me or my heart gives out.
-
81 and 82 rock.
------------
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/what-happens/#more-7422
-
Thought of a music video where the visual image would be that of one insect eating another alive (or should it be multiple examples?). What would the music sound like that went with it?
Real live monsters doing the most unspeakable acts to each other... It's like they're some kind of humorous psudeo subtle reminder by the way. What if instead they looked just like human beings (but still seemed relatively mindless) and there were chainsaw wielding species that went around killing and eating damsel in distress species?
There's something Phillip K. Dick about them but worse. He was mostly just losing reality. What if reality was not only being lost, but was being replaced by some other reality? What if you had suspicions the more realistic way of seeing the world was actually quite horrible and you had these tiny little monsters around you, which you're supposed to just ignore, which are constantly eating each other alive. In literaure, such things can almost serve as foreshadowing, or symbolism for the 'reality' of the situation in the story.
You can imagine a world where these bugs were the size of humans. Imagine say a battlefield of ants. Attacking a dying boring bee. It's not dead yet but they're already eating it alive. To be down in such a world is a nightmare world. No matter you're an entomologist and 'love' insects. They're eating each other alive constantly. They have extremely short life spans. They're often such mindless and yet highly specialized killing machines.
That they're so tiny is humorous. They're all around us. We're supposed to just ignore them and focus on Jesus or whatever as we sludge through our days. But there they are, sometimes there's minature flying monsters on my computer screen at this time of day. They're in effect saying, "Hey, guess what? Guess what the truth is of this world?" But we just ignore this other reality which is right on top of our own reality.
But at the same time they seem a beautiful miracle. That life can be so diverse. The boring bees on my porch would always get right up in my face. I like bees. How can such things exist? Have life?
-
What about a fictitious story that began in 1933 Germany, but then consisted of a way that the Jews managed to get the Nazi's past all that ugliness and they all learned to love one another instead? What in the world would it have taken to make that happen instead?
-
I have bicuspid aortic valve. I've known this for almost 30 years. I finally bothered to research it on the internet this week. I won't go into the complicated reasons I never did before. Apparently the last few doctors I've seen the last 5 or 6 years didn't have a clue. Apparently I really shouldn't be doing any heavy weight lifting or sprinting/jumping as both raise my blood pressure too much. Such is what I was originally told as a child. Was told I shouldn't even run. And that I would have to have open heart surgery before the age of 15.
But I had no pain, or symptoms at all when I ran and played. Just sharp pains when I was sitting around doing nothing. And I was so full of energy to run around and play. It was too much to do to such a kid. My parents even agreed. So we ignored the doctors advice. And I did everything. Including boxing (beat two state champions), powerlifting (even got third place in a big tournament once in the 242 class), general very heavy weight lifting (have done a chinup with an extra 140 pounds attached to me at 220 pounds bodyweight), basketball (could do a 360 two hand slam), run very long distances (although like a snail on that one), etc.
Through all such things never had any chest pain, thus figured the doctors were FOS. ...but here and there always had very sharp pains right over top my heart, thus I still worried I might keel over at any moment...
I finally quit worrying about it a few years ago on one doctor's advice, who said they now know such exercise makes no difference. And the pain I described couldn't possibly be the result of anything wrong with my heart. Probably some unimportant lung issue... A great weight off my shoulders...
Then even those sharp pains I'd had all my life went away.
But now, a new feeling has come. A strange fluttering feeling in my chest. Which caused me to finally use the damm internet and research my condition.
Now I see she didn't know what she was talking about. (Or perhaps figured lying would be better for me?)
I apparently really shouldn't be doing any heavy weight lifting. Or sprinting.
It appears I really have to be a wimp from now on. I have to live as if I'm broken.
And still chances are good I'll have to have my chest cracked open within the next 20 years.
-
Treated like hell at work this morning. It's actually hard enough I think to work one's ass off for 12 hours without then getting quizzed on every little irrelevant detail of each patient and then treated like shit if you can't remember each 100 of those new facts you could be attempting to memorize about each new set of patients.
No, I don't remember off the top of my head (of course it is all written down) the exact diameter of each patient's pupils when each patient doesn't even have anything wrong with their eyes, etc. My one boss tells me to just treat each report like a quiz. She's kind of a dumbass. The unfortunate thing about work is that both my bosses are... straying in that direction. Somehow, so far, they like me. But they ruin people's morale by telling them such things, to treat every single day at work as if there will be a big quiz at the end, that each day, after 12 hours, at which point you're exhausted, now take a test on every little thing you just did. I hope you were concentrating on every little endless unimportant detail. I hope you memorized it all. Now after you've reported it. Dump it. And memorize another endless string of useless info the next day. Repeat for 20 years until you suddenly get fired 6 months before retirement (which I've heard of happening quite often.)
The way I was treated today... it seemed like a setup. Don't want to go into the ugly details. Anyway afterwards I could look down at my chest and through my clothes I could count my heartbeats by sight. Treated in such a manner after working my ass off. 52 hours in the last 4 days. Such is life. Hopefully I'll be able to run myself through the ground trying to help, help, help people for a few decades before someone destroys me or my heart gives out.
-
81 and 82 rock.
------------
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/what-happens/#more-7422
Saturday, October 3, 2009
19 tone equal temperatment.
Today I like it. Although not impressed with the sound of Homegrown Piano. Still not entirely sure how much is the natural sound and how much is the single note pitch shifting scala file. Something which I could probably figure out in about how much time it's taking me to type this entry. But may not figure out for months.
Next something not equal perhaps. Something with a pure seventh (7/4) maybe.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
I think that people put on ..demeanors or personalities/moods for given social situations. A large part of the decision of what to put on, what to 'wear', is based on tradition. Simply mimicing what they saw those before them do. Eventually it becomes 'natural'.
If instead you're reiventing everything, questioning everything, you may reject certain demeanors or simply hold back from putting them on simply because you haven't yet decided that they're really the best thing to do.
Then you're left with what? Unsureness. Appearing nervous. Ill at ease. Or just appearing flat. You don't know how you should act. So you hold back and appear shy. Or unemotional. Or unfriendly.
This ties into being a 'late bloomer', instead of just copying others and getting as far as you'll ever get by the age of 20, you think things through, invent your own way, or eventually decide the tradition was actually the best way, and thus you don't 'mature' till much later. And though perhaps with insufficient exposure to certain situations you just never do 'mature'.
In my life I've done both by the way. I've followed tradition very closely at times. And when I did it seems a lot of people were impressed. Some few women wanted me, my mom was very happy with me... but I was kind of disgusted. Because I knew it was an act. An act I was capable of falling into. And making 'natural' but still part of a tradition that I hadn't actually decided was truly the right way forward. So, thus, I was just really mindlessly going along like a puppet, in my mind. And a part of me was disgusted with myself. Even though I wasn't seemingly causing any harm and in fact apparently making a lot of people happy/impressing people, etc.
I'm talking of stuff from just how you greet a new person and carry on a conversation up to how you act at a wedding. How you dance, how you take part in the festivities there and at a dance and anywhere.
Instead of being disgusted with myself I then mostly preferred to appear as if I were sulking. Which is to say holding back, appearing glum/'flat'. Just observing. Not taking part in anything that I hadn't decided was truly the best way forward.
And then, when I'm not taking part in the games that others have decided to play, they get annoyed. Of course people generally are mindlessly playing along/following tradition and of course those who are turning left when everyone else turns right, or just aren't walking at all are going to piss some people off.
But here, just noting part of what nervousness can be in social situations. Along with focusing too much on yourself instead of having interest in others. Of course too much interest in the other ruins the balance and you've 'won' and then they're probably going to be nervous and so on.
---
I borrowed an electric guitar from my one brother-in-law and yesterday a friend from nepal came over to play it. He has a couple such guitars in Nepal but didn't bring them with him. It's just like a somewhat cheap child's electric guitar. But with lots of overdrive distortion and/or some flanger, it sounds OK.
Attempting to play music with this guy a few times now hasn't really worked. He mainly just played bits of other people's songs. Which he does well, and was nice to listen to. There's something about having it right in front of you, controlling the distortion, etc yourself which is nice. But in trying to just play a few chords along with a drumbeat he starts he and there falling out of time.
So for me the interesting thing is to write music. I've zero interest in just playing other people's music. I want to improv and/or at least write original stuff. That isn't working out with him.
I couldn't quite see a way forward at the time and eventually just read a book while he messed around. In the past I managed to play a melodica while he played an acoustic. And it was music, but relatively crude. When it comes to being 'original' he's reduced to just repetitively playing a few chords as opposed to finding some random string of notes and then working with that string... But then perhaps two people improv'ing together means one has to keep it simple and repetitive.
So, just not sure how to work that.
Instead would make more sense for me to make tracks that have space left open for guitars and/or vocals. If I really want to collaborate with people. Which I think I do. So, I shall throw together such things. I think I could very easily throw together ten such tracks in a single day, just as a palette maybe for someone else to throw ideas at, and then back and forth.
...to be honest though, what I really want to do is just improv with someone. This fellow can definitely play a guitar but just isn't to that point yet.
I guess it just depends on what you do. If you just practice other people's music then you never get any good at improv'ing? I very early on would spend hours trying to improv on the piano, driving my family crazy as I hit endless wrong notes and slowly got better at identifying the right possibilities... You want to reach the point where you play a note and then in your head you hear what you want to come next and the instrument is just an extension of you, like your voice, and so you simply play what you wanted to come next. When nothing's coming next in your mind, then you can just wander around a bit while (usually) staying in key....
If instead you're reiventing everything, questioning everything, you may reject certain demeanors or simply hold back from putting them on simply because you haven't yet decided that they're really the best thing to do.
Then you're left with what? Unsureness. Appearing nervous. Ill at ease. Or just appearing flat. You don't know how you should act. So you hold back and appear shy. Or unemotional. Or unfriendly.
This ties into being a 'late bloomer', instead of just copying others and getting as far as you'll ever get by the age of 20, you think things through, invent your own way, or eventually decide the tradition was actually the best way, and thus you don't 'mature' till much later. And though perhaps with insufficient exposure to certain situations you just never do 'mature'.
In my life I've done both by the way. I've followed tradition very closely at times. And when I did it seems a lot of people were impressed. Some few women wanted me, my mom was very happy with me... but I was kind of disgusted. Because I knew it was an act. An act I was capable of falling into. And making 'natural' but still part of a tradition that I hadn't actually decided was truly the right way forward. So, thus, I was just really mindlessly going along like a puppet, in my mind. And a part of me was disgusted with myself. Even though I wasn't seemingly causing any harm and in fact apparently making a lot of people happy/impressing people, etc.
I'm talking of stuff from just how you greet a new person and carry on a conversation up to how you act at a wedding. How you dance, how you take part in the festivities there and at a dance and anywhere.
Instead of being disgusted with myself I then mostly preferred to appear as if I were sulking. Which is to say holding back, appearing glum/'flat'. Just observing. Not taking part in anything that I hadn't decided was truly the best way forward.
And then, when I'm not taking part in the games that others have decided to play, they get annoyed. Of course people generally are mindlessly playing along/following tradition and of course those who are turning left when everyone else turns right, or just aren't walking at all are going to piss some people off.
But here, just noting part of what nervousness can be in social situations. Along with focusing too much on yourself instead of having interest in others. Of course too much interest in the other ruins the balance and you've 'won' and then they're probably going to be nervous and so on.
---
I borrowed an electric guitar from my one brother-in-law and yesterday a friend from nepal came over to play it. He has a couple such guitars in Nepal but didn't bring them with him. It's just like a somewhat cheap child's electric guitar. But with lots of overdrive distortion and/or some flanger, it sounds OK.
Attempting to play music with this guy a few times now hasn't really worked. He mainly just played bits of other people's songs. Which he does well, and was nice to listen to. There's something about having it right in front of you, controlling the distortion, etc yourself which is nice. But in trying to just play a few chords along with a drumbeat he starts he and there falling out of time.
So for me the interesting thing is to write music. I've zero interest in just playing other people's music. I want to improv and/or at least write original stuff. That isn't working out with him.
I couldn't quite see a way forward at the time and eventually just read a book while he messed around. In the past I managed to play a melodica while he played an acoustic. And it was music, but relatively crude. When it comes to being 'original' he's reduced to just repetitively playing a few chords as opposed to finding some random string of notes and then working with that string... But then perhaps two people improv'ing together means one has to keep it simple and repetitive.
So, just not sure how to work that.
Instead would make more sense for me to make tracks that have space left open for guitars and/or vocals. If I really want to collaborate with people. Which I think I do. So, I shall throw together such things. I think I could very easily throw together ten such tracks in a single day, just as a palette maybe for someone else to throw ideas at, and then back and forth.
...to be honest though, what I really want to do is just improv with someone. This fellow can definitely play a guitar but just isn't to that point yet.
I guess it just depends on what you do. If you just practice other people's music then you never get any good at improv'ing? I very early on would spend hours trying to improv on the piano, driving my family crazy as I hit endless wrong notes and slowly got better at identifying the right possibilities... You want to reach the point where you play a note and then in your head you hear what you want to come next and the instrument is just an extension of you, like your voice, and so you simply play what you wanted to come next. When nothing's coming next in your mind, then you can just wander around a bit while (usually) staying in key....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
