During the past holiday season, my fancy took me to surfing online shopping sites. A form of consumerism that is becoming popular in leaps and bounds.
All at once I could view, compare and critique items across a wide spectrum of commodities and articles and suppliers; all from the security of my home PC. It was like entering a new world. One where fancies, likes and imagination could be satisfied on the spot. Of course, the money issue did put a damper on the googly eyed adventure. In essence, a reality very much like the traditional way of shopping; except for the armchair bit.
In between the hours spent online, I kept thinking as to the popularity of the medium at hand: Is the South African populace in tune with this medium? Which population demographic finds this electronic shopping experience attractive? What is popular? What about the legal paperwork? Probability of scam attacks and phishing expeditions?
To the first and second question, in speaking to friends and acquaintances, I derived that generally middle to high income households have shopped online: be it tickets to a movie, to a motor car. Most also tried their hand at grocery shopping. Thus the appeal is there.
What was fascinating is how members of the lower income demographic made use of internet cafes (the least of all secure sites) to carry out their order of business (The numbers in question were few but growing.)
The interesting bit came in the guise of some using the information at hand to do comparisons, then going to a physical shop to purchase the selected item in question. Fear of Credit Card information theft and of the faceless entity behind the online façade were the greatest deterrents to actually buying online; specially when substantial payment had to be made (I use one dedicated credit card with low limits to transact across the world wide web.)
Thus more questions came to mind: What would make the online experience more palatable and attractive? What would make the existing system more secure? What would quell the fears a consumer has about shopping online? What impact would the incoming consumer protection act have on the online shopping fraternity (would online service providers have to be RICA’ed or FICA’ed?) Would this action put to the inherent consumer fear of shopping online? Would a ‘comment box’ assist the consumer in voicing their opinions on the service, articles, etc?
The one avenue I found in my searches relates to the commonality of after-sales support more so than the offering of an online shopping portal. In the whole, retail companies offer online after-sales support structures: An operator will contact a consumer after a certain lapse in time to find out about the satisfaction perception. If positive, then all is well, if negative, then how can they assist!?
The above process tends to mostly placate and pacify consumers to the inferred ethos that the company cares.
As a whole, those that can, make use of online shopping to buy low to mid-priced items. The caution factor kicks in where huge payments have to be made. Here the consumer will go to the physical shop and pay there.
The lower income groups use the net more for comparison and availability purposes rather than outright online buying. The picture with the lower income groups is that the mindset is changing as the costs of internet hosting are dropping. The advent of intelligent mobile phones is also helping to change the mindset.
Personally I found the whole exercise insightful and calming: the threats are there, but with a small amount of internet savvy, threats can be managed and overcome.
Will I continue to buy online? Yes! Sensibly so.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Thursday, August 19, 2010
I Am In Love With Me (or why narcissists always rise to positions of power?)
In this world of new age philosophies, gobbledegook optimism, politically correct challenges, the glass is half full euphemisms and there-are-no-problems syndrome, Narcissism rules supreme.
What used to be viewed as a non-curable character flaw is now viewed as something to strive for or to live by. The media live by it, marketing strives on it and the corporate spaces abound with it. The megalomaniac philanthropist, Mr. Bill Gates, called it ‘tough love.’
During the sixties, the ‘I’ philosophy raised its ugly head in the shape of a smiley face. All the sudden it was not on to think of family or society as a comforting safe space. The ‘I’ was elevated beyond all hereto known values. Suddenly it was cool to claim; I am worth it, it is my life, what is in it for me, I am numero uno, greed is king, et al.
It is understood that human beings are social creatures that require frequent validation of their self worth. Social interactions usually take care of this need through normal everyday dialogue, debate, interchange of ideas, creative processes and the like.
Unfortunately, these so called normal processes, do not suffice in a narcissist world. The need to be superior is the primary force; a force that involves the covering up of feelings (a sign of weakness) while fostering feelings of self-importance and self-appeasement (a sign of grandiosity.) In other words, I am, I can…when I was …, I, I, I.
The plus side of narcissism is that it is an energetic, motivated, assertive and competitive condition. All who suffer from narcissism are individuals (a very important asset) who value creativity, who strive to always improve on themselves and who constantly view mistakes as non-entities. They also value intellectual performance above all else.
No that bad, one would think. The down side is that a narcissist will internalise failure to the extent of hostility towards others who are perceived to be their betters and thus will externalise blame on all negative events.
In other words, a narcissist will rationalise or rewrite history in their favour: “ They freely transform failures into successes, and construct lengthy and intricate rationalisations that inflate their self-worth or justify what they believe is their right.” Dr Theodore Milton. Dr. Roger Davis further pointed out that narcissists, “remember the past as they would have wanted it to occur, not as it actually happened.”
When confronted, narcissist will overtly express themselves in a self-justificating rage, character assassination and projection or deflection e.g. you are just envious.
They also exhibit traits such as; self-focus in interpersonal exchanges, difficulty with empathy, hypersensitivity to any perceived insults, a vulnerability to shame rather than guilt, subtle but persistent bragging, expert claims to most things, denials of remorse and gratitude, etc, etc.
All in all, not a nice condition at all.
Yet, this is what is being projected and inferred as to what one must aspire to.
The sixties ‘smiley face’ was an icon to the art of positive thought given the wars that were being fought at the time, and the impact they were having on society at large. Narcissism was never the intended outcome.
But as usual, the human condition will rise to the occasion and turn all good intentions to hell.
Food for Thought: The strange thing about narcissism is that it needs enablers to feed its need for attention and feeling of superiority. One craves power the other, security.
For me, give me a juicy portion of t-bone and chips, crème brûlée, and all is well with me.
Mwah!
What used to be viewed as a non-curable character flaw is now viewed as something to strive for or to live by. The media live by it, marketing strives on it and the corporate spaces abound with it. The megalomaniac philanthropist, Mr. Bill Gates, called it ‘tough love.’
During the sixties, the ‘I’ philosophy raised its ugly head in the shape of a smiley face. All the sudden it was not on to think of family or society as a comforting safe space. The ‘I’ was elevated beyond all hereto known values. Suddenly it was cool to claim; I am worth it, it is my life, what is in it for me, I am numero uno, greed is king, et al.
It is understood that human beings are social creatures that require frequent validation of their self worth. Social interactions usually take care of this need through normal everyday dialogue, debate, interchange of ideas, creative processes and the like.
Unfortunately, these so called normal processes, do not suffice in a narcissist world. The need to be superior is the primary force; a force that involves the covering up of feelings (a sign of weakness) while fostering feelings of self-importance and self-appeasement (a sign of grandiosity.) In other words, I am, I can…when I was …, I, I, I.
The plus side of narcissism is that it is an energetic, motivated, assertive and competitive condition. All who suffer from narcissism are individuals (a very important asset) who value creativity, who strive to always improve on themselves and who constantly view mistakes as non-entities. They also value intellectual performance above all else.
No that bad, one would think. The down side is that a narcissist will internalise failure to the extent of hostility towards others who are perceived to be their betters and thus will externalise blame on all negative events.
In other words, a narcissist will rationalise or rewrite history in their favour: “ They freely transform failures into successes, and construct lengthy and intricate rationalisations that inflate their self-worth or justify what they believe is their right.” Dr Theodore Milton. Dr. Roger Davis further pointed out that narcissists, “remember the past as they would have wanted it to occur, not as it actually happened.”
When confronted, narcissist will overtly express themselves in a self-justificating rage, character assassination and projection or deflection e.g. you are just envious.
They also exhibit traits such as; self-focus in interpersonal exchanges, difficulty with empathy, hypersensitivity to any perceived insults, a vulnerability to shame rather than guilt, subtle but persistent bragging, expert claims to most things, denials of remorse and gratitude, etc, etc.
All in all, not a nice condition at all.
Yet, this is what is being projected and inferred as to what one must aspire to.
The sixties ‘smiley face’ was an icon to the art of positive thought given the wars that were being fought at the time, and the impact they were having on society at large. Narcissism was never the intended outcome.
But as usual, the human condition will rise to the occasion and turn all good intentions to hell.
Food for Thought: The strange thing about narcissism is that it needs enablers to feed its need for attention and feeling of superiority. One craves power the other, security.
For me, give me a juicy portion of t-bone and chips, crème brûlée, and all is well with me.
Mwah!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Healthy Ignorance
If a high intelligence quotient as an ideal equates to the ultimate desire, then the ‘majority’ have much to aspire to. In statistical circles, 2% of the population (exceptionals) have IQ levels of 120 points or more while the ‘minorities’ (100 to 120 IQ points) account for around 15% of the population leaving the ‘mediocre’ and ‘majorities’ to account for the rest.
Putting the whole IQ world in perspective is a tricky exercise, but one which I believe to be of vital importance if one is to understand how the world of IQ levels is perceived. It is supposed that persons with IQ levels below 20 IQ points cannot be toilet trained while those with around 40 IQ points, although they may be able to attain grade 4 by ages 18, cannot look after themselves, and those with IQ points of 70 and lower cannot differentiate between right or wrong.
The ‘mediocre’ (90 to 100 IQ points) fare no better. Although they can do all the above with closed-eyes proficiency, they are not University material, their reading material is, at best, news stories (the reading of Editorials not included,) popular magazines and novels. Their morality is formed around executing what Authorities expects from them; be it work, religious, governmental or scholastic.
It must be understood that an IQ result is a statistically derived number which indicates relative and comparative abilities that can be used to obtain academic skills and knowledge. An individual has many specific mental abilities of which some can be measured accurately while others can only be used as indicators (or predictors) of academic abilities.
(Note: An IQ test does not measure most kinds of human abilities such as musical talent, artistic flair, emotional stability, physical co-ordination, or spiritual level.)
Thus it is left to the ‘minorities’ --
Actually, the ‘minority’ prospects are rather gloomy. Research at a Swedish University has scantly indicated that ‘minorities’ tend to suffer from one or other form of physiological malady when exposed to prolonged periods in the company of mediocrity. The results were obtained by randomly questioning ill people whose IQ levels fell within the prescribed range, specially those in corporate environments, as to what brought on the infirmity. All persons questioned replied that prior to the attack, or closely thereafter, they had to endure some or other act of stupidity by one of their fellow work mates; who were subsequently tested and found to have IQ levels below 100 IQ points.
-- and the ‘exceptionals’ to rule the roost, as these are individuals that can reason abstractly, postulate logic and solve what-if situations: exactly what is expected from leaders, politicians and decision makers!?
If the world is indeed ruled by the ‘brilliant,’ why is it in such a mess? Surely the intellectually superior can, by way of reason, foresee the outcome of a given action? And maybe they too suffer, like everyone else, from attacks of megalomania, from desires of grandeur and from blatant power mongery.
Consider; (all below mentioned are claimed to have an IQ above 100 points)
Hitler; an intelligent man who used reason as a means. Yet, his noble pursuits lost their benevolence as his insolence grew. Why should he who gained knowledge through reading implement a draconian rule like book-burning? Surely his common sense should have kicked in and told him that he was being a fool? Why the abnormal abhorrence of a people when intelligence, through reason, dictates that, in life, its not about absolutes but temperance?
Sister Theresa; a well-to-do woman who revelled in altruist pursuits. There was nothing that this women would not do for others; as long as their suffering met with her expectations.
Einstein; a confirmed logical thinker of high acclaim. Yet he believed in God; a subject that has no logical substance except through the eyes of faith. And his domestic life left a lot to be desired; just ask his wife’s.
Margaret Thatcher; highly respected for her powers of rationale and astuteness in negotiations. Yet she had no qualms about condemning (indirectly) a portion of the British population to death (starvation, exposure, war, etc) just because her pride could not be blackmailed.
What about persons who head reputable institutions, that are loved by their employees and partners alike, that are known for their powers of reason while behind closed doors, abuse their loved ones, and comit other atrocities.
What about a less known factor that most shakers-and-movers sufferer from one or other form of schizophrenia - Not a duality of character but of psychotic mania.
In the world of politics, we are all equal, but by all reasoning, an exaggerated misnomer:
Fact; In the world of IQ testing, we are not equal.
Fact; In the world of anthropomorphic measurements, we are not equal: That verbal inabilities are vast. That musculature variations are many. Even our powers of reason are dissimilar; and the list goes on.
Given all of the a foregoing reckonings, are IQ results of any use to anyone or to life in general?
As a means to an end, let me simplify the inadequacies of IQ testing by means of a true story: There was a murder case where this person, with an IQ below 70 points, could not be executed for his crime as he was deemed not to be able to distinguish between right or wrong, yet, because of his shrewd dedication in the pursuit of justice, the jury ruled that he was intelligent enough to die.
But it must be bliss to live in ignorance. It is postulated that higher intelligence may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on earth, contests the claim that ‘it is better to be smart than to be stupid,’ at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are far more successful than primates in these terms, and that is generally true of creatures that fill a specific niche or can undergo rapid genetic change.
Intelligence versus inanity will remain a bone of contention with much time being dedicated by pundits in the pursuit of answers. In the end, what will it all mean? I do believe that, in the greater scheme of things, not much. Life will continue its ineffable journey with us as passengers, whether we like it or not.
Healthy ignorance must be bliss, as no time is wasted on profound thought processes, in life analysis, or in elucidation. Life is lived as it comes and the rest will take care of itself; what joy, what bliss…what a waste.
Putting the whole IQ world in perspective is a tricky exercise, but one which I believe to be of vital importance if one is to understand how the world of IQ levels is perceived. It is supposed that persons with IQ levels below 20 IQ points cannot be toilet trained while those with around 40 IQ points, although they may be able to attain grade 4 by ages 18, cannot look after themselves, and those with IQ points of 70 and lower cannot differentiate between right or wrong.
The ‘mediocre’ (90 to 100 IQ points) fare no better. Although they can do all the above with closed-eyes proficiency, they are not University material, their reading material is, at best, news stories (the reading of Editorials not included,) popular magazines and novels. Their morality is formed around executing what Authorities expects from them; be it work, religious, governmental or scholastic.
It must be understood that an IQ result is a statistically derived number which indicates relative and comparative abilities that can be used to obtain academic skills and knowledge. An individual has many specific mental abilities of which some can be measured accurately while others can only be used as indicators (or predictors) of academic abilities.
(Note: An IQ test does not measure most kinds of human abilities such as musical talent, artistic flair, emotional stability, physical co-ordination, or spiritual level.)
Thus it is left to the ‘minorities’ --
Actually, the ‘minority’ prospects are rather gloomy. Research at a Swedish University has scantly indicated that ‘minorities’ tend to suffer from one or other form of physiological malady when exposed to prolonged periods in the company of mediocrity. The results were obtained by randomly questioning ill people whose IQ levels fell within the prescribed range, specially those in corporate environments, as to what brought on the infirmity. All persons questioned replied that prior to the attack, or closely thereafter, they had to endure some or other act of stupidity by one of their fellow work mates; who were subsequently tested and found to have IQ levels below 100 IQ points.
-- and the ‘exceptionals’ to rule the roost, as these are individuals that can reason abstractly, postulate logic and solve what-if situations: exactly what is expected from leaders, politicians and decision makers!?
If the world is indeed ruled by the ‘brilliant,’ why is it in such a mess? Surely the intellectually superior can, by way of reason, foresee the outcome of a given action? And maybe they too suffer, like everyone else, from attacks of megalomania, from desires of grandeur and from blatant power mongery.
Consider; (all below mentioned are claimed to have an IQ above 100 points)
Hitler; an intelligent man who used reason as a means. Yet, his noble pursuits lost their benevolence as his insolence grew. Why should he who gained knowledge through reading implement a draconian rule like book-burning? Surely his common sense should have kicked in and told him that he was being a fool? Why the abnormal abhorrence of a people when intelligence, through reason, dictates that, in life, its not about absolutes but temperance?
Sister Theresa; a well-to-do woman who revelled in altruist pursuits. There was nothing that this women would not do for others; as long as their suffering met with her expectations.
Einstein; a confirmed logical thinker of high acclaim. Yet he believed in God; a subject that has no logical substance except through the eyes of faith. And his domestic life left a lot to be desired; just ask his wife’s.
Margaret Thatcher; highly respected for her powers of rationale and astuteness in negotiations. Yet she had no qualms about condemning (indirectly) a portion of the British population to death (starvation, exposure, war, etc) just because her pride could not be blackmailed.
What about persons who head reputable institutions, that are loved by their employees and partners alike, that are known for their powers of reason while behind closed doors, abuse their loved ones, and comit other atrocities.
What about a less known factor that most shakers-and-movers sufferer from one or other form of schizophrenia - Not a duality of character but of psychotic mania.
In the world of politics, we are all equal, but by all reasoning, an exaggerated misnomer:
Fact; In the world of IQ testing, we are not equal.
Fact; In the world of anthropomorphic measurements, we are not equal: That verbal inabilities are vast. That musculature variations are many. Even our powers of reason are dissimilar; and the list goes on.
Given all of the a foregoing reckonings, are IQ results of any use to anyone or to life in general?
As a means to an end, let me simplify the inadequacies of IQ testing by means of a true story: There was a murder case where this person, with an IQ below 70 points, could not be executed for his crime as he was deemed not to be able to distinguish between right or wrong, yet, because of his shrewd dedication in the pursuit of justice, the jury ruled that he was intelligent enough to die.
But it must be bliss to live in ignorance. It is postulated that higher intelligence may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on earth, contests the claim that ‘it is better to be smart than to be stupid,’ at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are far more successful than primates in these terms, and that is generally true of creatures that fill a specific niche or can undergo rapid genetic change.
Intelligence versus inanity will remain a bone of contention with much time being dedicated by pundits in the pursuit of answers. In the end, what will it all mean? I do believe that, in the greater scheme of things, not much. Life will continue its ineffable journey with us as passengers, whether we like it or not.
Healthy ignorance must be bliss, as no time is wasted on profound thought processes, in life analysis, or in elucidation. Life is lived as it comes and the rest will take care of itself; what joy, what bliss…what a waste.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
2009 and Beyond
Usually at this time of the year, I tend to take a step backwards to gaze upon life in all its glory and craziness.
I once read that not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious. A tenet that, after much thought, compelled me to re-think my priorities and concerns. And given all the pessimism permeating our air-waves, printed media and the populace in general, a tenet that has helped me develop an optimistic view of life, but an optimism that remains grounded in reality and hard-learnt life experiences – whether one sees a half-full glass or a half-empty glass, one still only gets a half glass of whatever.
Overall, 2008 was a year of note. It was a year where many opportunities came-a-knocking, where many initiatives were completed to their logical conclusions and where many disappointments were contended with. It was also a year where many lessons were learnt, where problems were faced, where frustrations were tempered and where challenges were defeated.
When all is said and done, here I stand, knowing that irrespective of what was thrown my way by the machinations of life, I surmounted all obstacles standing tall…and with a smile on my face.
As for 2009, who knows, but given my record at surmounting impossible odds, I am confident that the future will find me at the helm of my life, pedal to the metal.
Here’s to a kick-ass 2009 and beyond.
I once read that not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious. A tenet that, after much thought, compelled me to re-think my priorities and concerns. And given all the pessimism permeating our air-waves, printed media and the populace in general, a tenet that has helped me develop an optimistic view of life, but an optimism that remains grounded in reality and hard-learnt life experiences – whether one sees a half-full glass or a half-empty glass, one still only gets a half glass of whatever.
Overall, 2008 was a year of note. It was a year where many opportunities came-a-knocking, where many initiatives were completed to their logical conclusions and where many disappointments were contended with. It was also a year where many lessons were learnt, where problems were faced, where frustrations were tempered and where challenges were defeated.
When all is said and done, here I stand, knowing that irrespective of what was thrown my way by the machinations of life, I surmounted all obstacles standing tall…and with a smile on my face.
As for 2009, who knows, but given my record at surmounting impossible odds, I am confident that the future will find me at the helm of my life, pedal to the metal.
Here’s to a kick-ass 2009 and beyond.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Avarice and the Human Psyche
Avarice, the one defining human trait that continues to defy reason and understanding. It is, above all other frailties, the single most destructive force ever conjured by creatures of intellect. And it never fails to deliver.
But avarice does not work alone. It shares the same haunts as covetousness and patriotism. It sleeps with propaganda and altruism. It gives power to greed, war-mongering and bigotry. It is a beast of burden that serves unconditionally and omni-potently. It is omnipresent and resolute. It lives cosily encased in contrived rationale and statistical ambiguities. Winning at all costs, its endearing mantra.
In the Technocratic world, avarice regulates human governance with an iron fist - By subtly playing to one’s guilt about being selfish and or being self-absorbed i.e. perceived peer pressure, technocrats maintain their much sought after mass control. Control of the environment will also ensure that freedom-of-choice is controllably managed.
Generals, in much the same way as Technocrats, achieve similar end-results from the available troop-mass. The only difference are the methods employed: army life existing in a more restrictive atmosphere means that mind-washing techniques are used with subtle impunity i.e. for the good of national security.
At work, in the hands of clever manipulators, it works wonders at keeping the paid-for throngs under control. Implied fear being the most commonly used tool in work circumstances i.e. you’re not a team player, others are happy with the situation, not pulling your weight, possible downsizing in the offing, etc.
Capitalism is its great advocator. Capitalism survives on greed and in ‘keeping up with the Jones’s.’ And greed begets greed begets greed begets greed. An unending voracious cycle that does not care for individuals, masses, religious backgrounds, upbringings or caste. A true vice.
Over the years, many ‘ocracies’ and ‘isms’ have being devised, all with noble intentions and doable goals, only to be deposed soon after its birth - nothing laced with avarice is noble or just, for it serves its own purposes, its own agendas, its own meritocracy.
So, where to from here? Is there an Achilles heel to all this, or is the light at the end of the tunnel that of an oncoming train? In reality, it’s the latter that bears fruit: while the human psyche exists, so too will its propensity for avarice. Irrespective of how it is rationalised, the human spirit will always be self-serving and self-justifying.
But avarice does not work alone. It shares the same haunts as covetousness and patriotism. It sleeps with propaganda and altruism. It gives power to greed, war-mongering and bigotry. It is a beast of burden that serves unconditionally and omni-potently. It is omnipresent and resolute. It lives cosily encased in contrived rationale and statistical ambiguities. Winning at all costs, its endearing mantra.
In the Technocratic world, avarice regulates human governance with an iron fist - By subtly playing to one’s guilt about being selfish and or being self-absorbed i.e. perceived peer pressure, technocrats maintain their much sought after mass control. Control of the environment will also ensure that freedom-of-choice is controllably managed.
Generals, in much the same way as Technocrats, achieve similar end-results from the available troop-mass. The only difference are the methods employed: army life existing in a more restrictive atmosphere means that mind-washing techniques are used with subtle impunity i.e. for the good of national security.
At work, in the hands of clever manipulators, it works wonders at keeping the paid-for throngs under control. Implied fear being the most commonly used tool in work circumstances i.e. you’re not a team player, others are happy with the situation, not pulling your weight, possible downsizing in the offing, etc.
Capitalism is its great advocator. Capitalism survives on greed and in ‘keeping up with the Jones’s.’ And greed begets greed begets greed begets greed. An unending voracious cycle that does not care for individuals, masses, religious backgrounds, upbringings or caste. A true vice.
Over the years, many ‘ocracies’ and ‘isms’ have being devised, all with noble intentions and doable goals, only to be deposed soon after its birth - nothing laced with avarice is noble or just, for it serves its own purposes, its own agendas, its own meritocracy.
So, where to from here? Is there an Achilles heel to all this, or is the light at the end of the tunnel that of an oncoming train? In reality, it’s the latter that bears fruit: while the human psyche exists, so too will its propensity for avarice. Irrespective of how it is rationalised, the human spirit will always be self-serving and self-justifying.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Why Can't Life be Simple
Why can’t life be simple? It just seems that the harder one tries to simplify things, the more complicated life becomes. And believe you me, I’ve tried and tried only to meet with disastrous consequences, that bear no relationship to what has gone before.
Being a proponent of ‘what is’ denotes that I should have a deeper understanding of the inner working of life, the universe and everything else (apologies to Douglas Adams,) but invariably, it turns out that I do not.
Being worse than a cat when it comes to the pursuit of comfort, I spend much time in evaluating what is non-sense and inconsequential. I also spend effort in searching for ways to do tasks simpler and with the least amount of effort. And in creating an environment where I reign supreme. But like they say in the classics: bah humbug!
Everyday I wake up to a new sunrise full of expectations that all will run according to plan, only to find that its all for nought – an eventuality will interfere, direct and command what was a peaceful existence - it appears that personal ideals are not deserving and should be disrupted and thrown out of tilt.
Now the above may sound far fetched and out of synch with what the rest of the world are busy with, but considering that death is the ultimate judge, does it not stand to reason that living life is more important than just living, and that all else is just conversation?
Have people forgotten what it is like to be human?
Have we become so caught up in the pursuit of opinions and in the pursuit of being right, that life has lost all meaning. Do we really believe that something or someone ethereal will save us from the undeniable fact that death lurks and that eventually, it will consume all corporeal existence.
We have devised belief systems that provide well rationalised answers to questions of mystery, to questions of wonderment and to inquiries of bafflement, yet, in-between all the brouhaha of information, we remain frail pathetic humans. The only difference is that we suffer from dementia of ‘there must be more to life’ rather than looking at ourselves and realising that power is within each one of us and that collectively, we can achieve whatever we set out minds to.
Our relationships have become tainted with postulated dreams of romance, have become tainted with conjured visions of a what a soul mate is and have become tainted with viewpoints that subvert what it means to be human. We like to be told that we are exceptional, we like to be told that we are good looking and we like that others see us for what we are. Yet we run around blaspheming the good names of others, we run around gossiping about the doings of others and we run around passing judgment on what others deem to be normal
Life is not personal, it is aloof, unemotional and damn frustrating. It is not an anomaly that purports to support life in all its guises. It is what it is. It is an ever changing condition that has allowed species to develop and then to die off without any rational reason. It is a condition that allowed a species to develop congealed grey matter into monstrous complex creatures that kill, maim and destroys one another for the sake of an opinion, territory and just for just.
Life also does not care for the individual, it is not so devised and it does not operate in that way. The death or life of an individual does not life make. Yet, it is all we crave: the will to be ourselves, the vehemence to be different to others, the glorification of self.
But knowing that life will be life is not enough. Humans need more. They need acceptance, they need the human touch and they need the assertion that a life has not been in vain. They also need diplomacy for anything else is deemed as abhorrent.
And then there are emotions: a bunch of irrational deep down unexplainable feelings that are bundled together in a flesh-and-bone upright walking-talking Homo Sapiens. They mean nothing at the best of times and at the worst of times, they get in the way of what should be a clear logical explanation to existence. Yet, one can hate them or love them, the fact remains that they are a reality of life and will continue to be so long after the surcease of breath.
The expectations behind the veil of life are cumbersome at best. They are mostly construed, connived and full of rationalized good will and intentions. Yet they pale into insignificance when confronted by vanity, emotions and simplicity.
In the end, maybe its all about denial. A condition that transcends all cultural barriers, gender backgrounds and social standings. A condition that affects all and spares none. The great aunt to vanity, and the main culprit behind bigotry, elitism and the human suffering.
Being a proponent of ‘what is’ denotes that I should have a deeper understanding of the inner working of life, the universe and everything else (apologies to Douglas Adams,) but invariably, it turns out that I do not.
Being worse than a cat when it comes to the pursuit of comfort, I spend much time in evaluating what is non-sense and inconsequential. I also spend effort in searching for ways to do tasks simpler and with the least amount of effort. And in creating an environment where I reign supreme. But like they say in the classics: bah humbug!
Everyday I wake up to a new sunrise full of expectations that all will run according to plan, only to find that its all for nought – an eventuality will interfere, direct and command what was a peaceful existence - it appears that personal ideals are not deserving and should be disrupted and thrown out of tilt.
Now the above may sound far fetched and out of synch with what the rest of the world are busy with, but considering that death is the ultimate judge, does it not stand to reason that living life is more important than just living, and that all else is just conversation?
Have people forgotten what it is like to be human?
Have we become so caught up in the pursuit of opinions and in the pursuit of being right, that life has lost all meaning. Do we really believe that something or someone ethereal will save us from the undeniable fact that death lurks and that eventually, it will consume all corporeal existence.
We have devised belief systems that provide well rationalised answers to questions of mystery, to questions of wonderment and to inquiries of bafflement, yet, in-between all the brouhaha of information, we remain frail pathetic humans. The only difference is that we suffer from dementia of ‘there must be more to life’ rather than looking at ourselves and realising that power is within each one of us and that collectively, we can achieve whatever we set out minds to.
Our relationships have become tainted with postulated dreams of romance, have become tainted with conjured visions of a what a soul mate is and have become tainted with viewpoints that subvert what it means to be human. We like to be told that we are exceptional, we like to be told that we are good looking and we like that others see us for what we are. Yet we run around blaspheming the good names of others, we run around gossiping about the doings of others and we run around passing judgment on what others deem to be normal
Life is not personal, it is aloof, unemotional and damn frustrating. It is not an anomaly that purports to support life in all its guises. It is what it is. It is an ever changing condition that has allowed species to develop and then to die off without any rational reason. It is a condition that allowed a species to develop congealed grey matter into monstrous complex creatures that kill, maim and destroys one another for the sake of an opinion, territory and just for just.
Life also does not care for the individual, it is not so devised and it does not operate in that way. The death or life of an individual does not life make. Yet, it is all we crave: the will to be ourselves, the vehemence to be different to others, the glorification of self.
But knowing that life will be life is not enough. Humans need more. They need acceptance, they need the human touch and they need the assertion that a life has not been in vain. They also need diplomacy for anything else is deemed as abhorrent.
And then there are emotions: a bunch of irrational deep down unexplainable feelings that are bundled together in a flesh-and-bone upright walking-talking Homo Sapiens. They mean nothing at the best of times and at the worst of times, they get in the way of what should be a clear logical explanation to existence. Yet, one can hate them or love them, the fact remains that they are a reality of life and will continue to be so long after the surcease of breath.
The expectations behind the veil of life are cumbersome at best. They are mostly construed, connived and full of rationalized good will and intentions. Yet they pale into insignificance when confronted by vanity, emotions and simplicity.
In the end, maybe its all about denial. A condition that transcends all cultural barriers, gender backgrounds and social standings. A condition that affects all and spares none. The great aunt to vanity, and the main culprit behind bigotry, elitism and the human suffering.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Out of the Mouth of Babes
"All kids are born: self-centred, solipsistic little sewage machines who would happily snatch the last sliver of your will to live for half a teaspoon of prune puree.
Children are not born pure and good and then become tainted by their environment, as victims of sentiment will have you believe. Actually, they’re born malicious little douche bags, who’s parents must then teach to become respectable members of society" - Chris McEvoy
Children are not born pure and good and then become tainted by their environment, as victims of sentiment will have you believe. Actually, they’re born malicious little douche bags, who’s parents must then teach to become respectable members of society" - Chris McEvoy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
