I've finished my reading of the works of Carl Jung, and apart from one very important distinction dealing with the personality types, there was little that hadn't already been included in my education up to this point. The one main definition that I thought was interesting was the definition of the Introvert and the Extrovert. This deals with the relationship between the person and what Jung calls the "object." What he means comes directly from Plato's Form theory. An extrovert relates himself with the object by letting the object influence him. An extrovert draws energy from the world around him, and derives all meaning and sensation from the things around him. He is the one, who, in a social situation, draws energy from the people who he sees. Being in a social situation excites him, and so therefore, most outgoing people are therefore extroverts. Jung further shows that society has come to consider extrovertism as the positive side of the conscious mind. Someone who is not outgoing and engaging obviously has some sort of mental problem. Of course, I feel differently.
The "object," of course, does not have to be just a person or a thing. An extrovert also becomes excited about an idea, a philosophy, and lets those ideas draw him along, influencing his daily decisions. Jung goes further into the personality types and demonstrates how each type would act given a certain situation. While I cannot agree with him on everything, since the time that he was writing was filled with different expectations upon people in the society (there are certain sexism beliefs that I would not agree with today.), I can say that a lot of what he says is concurrent with my observances of myself and others.
The introvert, on the other hand, relates to the object by using his own ideas and philosophies and applying it to the object. This includes prior knowledge, empirical experiences, and unconscious connections with buried knowledge, emotions, "archetypes" etc... For instance, an introvert would take a rose and instantly apply the archetypes that go along with the rose that has been expressed over and over in literature. Beauty, life, death, the loss of beauty or innocence...etc. A pure extravert would revel in the beauty of the individual rose, the smell, the happiness that his loved one would feel when given the flower. Or he would curse in pain after hitting a thorn.
Of course, most of us express both, since we are not purely one or the other. We all exist on a graphed line, somewhere in between the extremes that Jung uses in his essays. Further, we exist on other lines in that graph, ones that have been expounded upon by Briggs in the personality test that have been so popular. I am, for practical purposes, an INFP, or Introvert, Intuitive (instead of Sensing), Feeling (instead of Thinking) and Perceptive (instead of Judging). I found it interesting that, while looking at articles on the internet about the personalities (Wikipedia, actually), I found a psychologist named David Keirsey who argued that ADHD was simply the combining of different personality types, and the bias of society against those particular types. Anyway, what Jung drew up as far as my personality was concerned, actually worked, even to the point of demonstrating how people that are Introverted and Feeling would not be very good teachers, since the introvert relates everything upon himself. Society negatively applies this personality as one who is egocentric, arrogant, and selfish. And while I would agree that I do tend to be self-centered, to some extent, I disagree with the idea that the introvert is unable to care for other people and to see beyond his own needs and thoughts.
The other interesting thing about Jung and his philosophies is how he is biased toward the introverted personality. The introvert, he argues, is able to access the thoughts that are hidden within the unconscious and collective conscious states. For the extrovert, all meaning and thoughts are applicable only from the outside, and the inner mind is of no discernible consequence. Of course, that's when the rational extrovert will start to behave irrationally, when forces from the unconscious mind surfaces and directs the person into a more balanced course of action. It also might be irrational when an extrovert develops some sort of neuroses from ignoring the important forces that are located within. To me, the introvert is much more able to understand and interpret the thoughts coming from within and to apply them to the outside world. To express them, in art or poetry perhaps. Without this, a rose is simply a rose.
*****
I have also decided that I will die by removal of pickle. It is troubling enough to get out of the McDonald's parking lot without getting run into, but the added difficulty of trying to remove the pickle, the bane of my existence, from the cheeseburger, so that I may eat it without finding that green mutant of a vegetable, will eventually get me killed. If I am going to be destructive enough to go to McDonald's and order a double cheeseburger, the last thing they need to do is to try and improve the nutrition of the fast food by adding a vegetable. Burger King has it right when they made the double stacker burger. Why bother putting a pickle in there?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Nostalgia, or Life without Electricty
It was Turner, the famous British Landscape painter, who brought the forests of England, as well as the rest of Europe, into favor with the art scene during the late 1700's. Without his influence, artists like Monet and Caspar David Friedrich would not have recieved the high praise for simple paintings of scenery. But the need for landscape scenes in England during this time was important for more than just art. It was a symbol of the vanishing forests of England, that were being replaced by factories and the Industrial Revolution.
My point is that the most popular art exists when the objects that are being painted are being destroyed. Currently, impressionist paintings are among the most prevalent posters found in dorm rooms today (aside from scantily clad women). We find beauty in landscapes found in Alaska or Montana because, for the most of us, we have never seen such beauty. For the people living in urban areas, especially here in the south, mountains and snow are only seen on TV and on the paintings in stores. Further, one of the most popular new videos for the Christmas holiday is the video Yule log, since most people now living in urban areas have no fireplaces, they must make do with an electronic one.
Perhaps this is one reason why bluegrass music is just as popular today as it was in times past. It is why places like Williamsburg and Stone Mountain exist and thrive, because the yearning for the earlier, simpler times pervade into our consciousness. We want to slow down, to become like our grandparents and our ancestors. Of course, we would not want to give up our modern luxuries, but at the same time, a log cabin someplace far away would be ideal for most of us, if even for a few days or so. I've often admired a log fishing cabin on Highway 212 going to Milledgeville as a great place for me to live if I ever had more money than I knew what to do with. It's right on the banks of Lake Sinclair, and it probably costs a bundle (but of course, that's why we value it so much, because the dreams of the people with money to be able to get away from everything for a few days is often overwhelming. If I had a simple cabin next to a lake, with a simple T1 line to access the Internet :), that would be everything I need.
I'm talking about Nostalgia. The yearning for simpler times that have been destroyed by modern day society. And it's in line for capitalism to do this, because then they can offer islands of simple bliss far away from society for outrageous amounts of money. And of course these places are far away from cities, so that you have to drive for hours to get there, which then it's necessary to have a car and to put lots of gas into said car. This is capitalism at it's finest, and this is also what OSC was talking about in that blog I referenced to earlier. The perfect example is Reynolds Plantation on Lake Oconee. Houses that cost millions of dollars, an hour away from Atlanta, and no nothing for miles. But to live on a lake in the middle of nowhere, that would be the life. Of course the houses have to be mansions with cable and internet and cell phones and stuff, instead of the fishing cabins I would be happy with.
Of course, Nostalgia isn't a bad thing totally. I was getting all the cynicism out of the way. There is something very peaceful about nostalgia, in the music, in the writings, in the paintings. I have often found such peace in the songs of Michael Nesmith, as well as the writings of Henry David Thoreau. a good book for younger kids is Gary Paulsen's The Island. There are so many wonderful works of art, music, and books, that give a sense of Nostalgia, but nothing like actually going to the small towns in America and seeing how people used to live, and in some cases, still live today. I was watching a TV show on PBS that talked about the unusual side-of-the-road architechture in small town America. It made me smile, and laugh, and wish that I was working in some local bookstore in DeepStep, Georgia, because I feel there's something missing in today's world that existed in great abundance in the times of my grandparents.
I remember walking down the neighborhood of my youth, Rolling Green, and seeing no one out, even though it was a warm summer day, and realizing that everyone was inside playing video games, or out playing one of the myriad of soccer games that were scheduled every day of the year. No time to actually get out and be kids. I enjoy even today going over to Factory Shoals Park in Newton Co. near Lake Jackson and going to the swimming hole there. It's such a refreshing change of pace. But for the most part, most kids nowadays will never know those pleasures. They will be whisked away to arranged sports games to play dates where the main focus will be some sort of electronic diversion, or they will spend hours in front of the TV playing their Wiis or their PS3s. And I'm just as guilty as they are. We should all spend time without electricity, and see what our imaginations will think of to keep us happy. People would be happier doing this than what they think.
My point is that the most popular art exists when the objects that are being painted are being destroyed. Currently, impressionist paintings are among the most prevalent posters found in dorm rooms today (aside from scantily clad women). We find beauty in landscapes found in Alaska or Montana because, for the most of us, we have never seen such beauty. For the people living in urban areas, especially here in the south, mountains and snow are only seen on TV and on the paintings in stores. Further, one of the most popular new videos for the Christmas holiday is the video Yule log, since most people now living in urban areas have no fireplaces, they must make do with an electronic one.
Perhaps this is one reason why bluegrass music is just as popular today as it was in times past. It is why places like Williamsburg and Stone Mountain exist and thrive, because the yearning for the earlier, simpler times pervade into our consciousness. We want to slow down, to become like our grandparents and our ancestors. Of course, we would not want to give up our modern luxuries, but at the same time, a log cabin someplace far away would be ideal for most of us, if even for a few days or so. I've often admired a log fishing cabin on Highway 212 going to Milledgeville as a great place for me to live if I ever had more money than I knew what to do with. It's right on the banks of Lake Sinclair, and it probably costs a bundle (but of course, that's why we value it so much, because the dreams of the people with money to be able to get away from everything for a few days is often overwhelming. If I had a simple cabin next to a lake, with a simple T1 line to access the Internet :), that would be everything I need.
I'm talking about Nostalgia. The yearning for simpler times that have been destroyed by modern day society. And it's in line for capitalism to do this, because then they can offer islands of simple bliss far away from society for outrageous amounts of money. And of course these places are far away from cities, so that you have to drive for hours to get there, which then it's necessary to have a car and to put lots of gas into said car. This is capitalism at it's finest, and this is also what OSC was talking about in that blog I referenced to earlier. The perfect example is Reynolds Plantation on Lake Oconee. Houses that cost millions of dollars, an hour away from Atlanta, and no nothing for miles. But to live on a lake in the middle of nowhere, that would be the life. Of course the houses have to be mansions with cable and internet and cell phones and stuff, instead of the fishing cabins I would be happy with.
Of course, Nostalgia isn't a bad thing totally. I was getting all the cynicism out of the way. There is something very peaceful about nostalgia, in the music, in the writings, in the paintings. I have often found such peace in the songs of Michael Nesmith, as well as the writings of Henry David Thoreau. a good book for younger kids is Gary Paulsen's The Island. There are so many wonderful works of art, music, and books, that give a sense of Nostalgia, but nothing like actually going to the small towns in America and seeing how people used to live, and in some cases, still live today. I was watching a TV show on PBS that talked about the unusual side-of-the-road architechture in small town America. It made me smile, and laugh, and wish that I was working in some local bookstore in DeepStep, Georgia, because I feel there's something missing in today's world that existed in great abundance in the times of my grandparents.
I remember walking down the neighborhood of my youth, Rolling Green, and seeing no one out, even though it was a warm summer day, and realizing that everyone was inside playing video games, or out playing one of the myriad of soccer games that were scheduled every day of the year. No time to actually get out and be kids. I enjoy even today going over to Factory Shoals Park in Newton Co. near Lake Jackson and going to the swimming hole there. It's such a refreshing change of pace. But for the most part, most kids nowadays will never know those pleasures. They will be whisked away to arranged sports games to play dates where the main focus will be some sort of electronic diversion, or they will spend hours in front of the TV playing their Wiis or their PS3s. And I'm just as guilty as they are. We should all spend time without electricity, and see what our imaginations will think of to keep us happy. People would be happier doing this than what they think.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Polarization of Society
I generally don't worry about the Yahoo! Answer function, but the question they posed about the political situation of America today intrigued me, so I answered it. My answer below, and I'll take a look at the issue and follow up at some point, because it's closely related to many things I've talked about before.
Why have political parties become so polarized that they fail to address the concerns of most Americans?
One answer is to look at the underlying motives of today's political leaders. What makes them believe what they believe? One answer (and certainly not the only one), is that while Democracy is the governmental system we exist under, we must look at government through the eyes of the business man, through the system of capitalism under which we have so thrived. Most issues under the dome are considered not only for what is good for the people or the nation, but also what is good for the financial goals of each congressman's constituents and the companies that have invested interest in the country.
The problem that we are having today is when the goals of the businessman become more important than the happiness, well-being, or even safety, of the citizens. It is at that point that capitalism mutates into a more sinister system. I have been calling it "Consumerism." This is a system of capitalism that focuses on short term benefits, cares nothing about the future, and sees the citizens as a resource, to use and abuse however it sees fit. Certainly there are many companies today that realize that, while the practices and decisions they make will profit them now, the cost may be the lives of its consumers, or the well-being of the planet.
Now, what this has to do with the question? It is necessary to look at the financial aspects of any decision in Washington in order to see the motives behind the support or opposition to that decision. Would funding the Iraq War be a blessing for airline makers, ammunition companies, oil and gas companies? Or would the instability of the Middle East actually hurt the economy? Money definitely has a primary role in what our congressmen decide.
Combine that with the philosophy behind Consumerism. Things must happen now, quickly, without regards to consequences in the future. The media, of course, instigates this in the continual hounding of officials about this issue or the other. The Iraq war should have been over a week after it began, and Iraq should now be a thriving country of happy capitalist free men and women who would be happy to spend their money for our benefit. Of course, it doesn't work that way. And when it doesn't, people must find some more radical action to make it happen quicker. It seems that today, people are living much more quickly in their daily lives, in their beliefs, in the way that they expect the country to run. Trials should be over in an hour, since that's the way Matlock did them. So too should wars, or negotiations, or whatever the case may be. The pendulum that so often swings from one side to the other, has been swinging more quickly in the past few years, with no need for a Hegelian synthesis of opposing viewpoints. To compromise would be to slow the pendulum down, and this cannot happen.
This is a complex question, with many answers, many different reasons why that polarization has happened in government (and not just government, but most of society has become polarized about everything. You choose only Coke, or you like either Paris or Lindsey, or you love someone or hate them.). I cannot answer this in one simple question, but I will try and look at it and give a better answer. I do have a blog: http://www.myspace.com/Audoin , which you are welcome to browse through. This question has given me something to think about, and to respond to, when I get around to it.
Why have political parties become so polarized that they fail to address the concerns of most Americans?
One answer is to look at the underlying motives of today's political leaders. What makes them believe what they believe? One answer (and certainly not the only one), is that while Democracy is the governmental system we exist under, we must look at government through the eyes of the business man, through the system of capitalism under which we have so thrived. Most issues under the dome are considered not only for what is good for the people or the nation, but also what is good for the financial goals of each congressman's constituents and the companies that have invested interest in the country.
The problem that we are having today is when the goals of the businessman become more important than the happiness, well-being, or even safety, of the citizens. It is at that point that capitalism mutates into a more sinister system. I have been calling it "Consumerism." This is a system of capitalism that focuses on short term benefits, cares nothing about the future, and sees the citizens as a resource, to use and abuse however it sees fit. Certainly there are many companies today that realize that, while the practices and decisions they make will profit them now, the cost may be the lives of its consumers, or the well-being of the planet.
Now, what this has to do with the question? It is necessary to look at the financial aspects of any decision in Washington in order to see the motives behind the support or opposition to that decision. Would funding the Iraq War be a blessing for airline makers, ammunition companies, oil and gas companies? Or would the instability of the Middle East actually hurt the economy? Money definitely has a primary role in what our congressmen decide.
Combine that with the philosophy behind Consumerism. Things must happen now, quickly, without regards to consequences in the future. The media, of course, instigates this in the continual hounding of officials about this issue or the other. The Iraq war should have been over a week after it began, and Iraq should now be a thriving country of happy capitalist free men and women who would be happy to spend their money for our benefit. Of course, it doesn't work that way. And when it doesn't, people must find some more radical action to make it happen quicker. It seems that today, people are living much more quickly in their daily lives, in their beliefs, in the way that they expect the country to run. Trials should be over in an hour, since that's the way Matlock did them. So too should wars, or negotiations, or whatever the case may be. The pendulum that so often swings from one side to the other, has been swinging more quickly in the past few years, with no need for a Hegelian synthesis of opposing viewpoints. To compromise would be to slow the pendulum down, and this cannot happen.
This is a complex question, with many answers, many different reasons why that polarization has happened in government (and not just government, but most of society has become polarized about everything. You choose only Coke, or you like either Paris or Lindsey, or you love someone or hate them.). I cannot answer this in one simple question, but I will try and look at it and give a better answer. I do have a blog: http://www.myspace.com/Audoin , which you are welcome to browse through. This question has given me something to think about, and to respond to, when I get around to it.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Water Water Everywhere...
I've been away a while... not much going on here. I've been reading the essays of Carl Jung, and finding that most of it is what I already know (I think I said that the last blog entry). So I won't bore anyone with that....
We're having a drought here in Georgia...wildfires happening to the south of us and no rain to be seen. I wish we could get the rain that's being dumped on Oklahoma and whatnot and transfer it over here. And it's not just us... you see pictures in the news constantly of countries that are in drought, and people that die of no water, etc...Some sociologists and environmentalists predict that the next global war will occur over water supplies, and not religion or land or whatever.
But I'm here to tell you right now that if the whole country dries up, and the grasses die and trees are engulfed in flames, that the Mall at Stonecrest will have deep green grass and dew-laiden bushes every day. Obviously the watering ban means nothing to them. There's probably some exception made to big businesses or for places where appearance would affect profit. I have seen on more than one occasion the sprinklers being on in the middle of the day, well past the watering restriction times. And the sprinklers are not always aimed at the vegetation. I can honestly say that Stonecrest Mall has the cleanest pavement around. The cement will never thirst. When the summer progresses, and towns announce that they have 30 days of water left, let us all thank Stonecrest for having such beautiful green lawns, instead of water for the citizens to drink.
Of course, it's not just Stonecrest that is the culprit here. I've seen GC&SU do the same thing. Middle of summer, drought conditions, but the azaelas in back of Atkinson Hall were watered every day.
The reasoning for this goes back to my last post. The goal for the mall is to provide an island, an oasis, if you will, from everyday life. A place where you can spend the day with beautiful landscaping and inviting smells and sounds, with Target built like a castle on the hill, surrounded by lush trees and camoflauging brush that hides the parking lots. All of this so you can spend the day at the mall, inside, spending your money on whatever your heart desires. Further, the mall is isolated from the rest of the world. You have to drive 20 minutes to get there. But the mall wouldn't have it any other way. And I'm sure that the Sam's Club loves it, since they have gas pumps all ready to take you home. And when the suburban sprawl gets too close, we'll build another mall, maybe out near Social Circle, and we can all drive a half hour to escape our lives for an afternoon of consmerist ecstacy. I think that the people at Atlantic Station in Atlanta have it figured out right. That's the way we should do it. And they can use the water, in my opinion, because people are living, shopping, and enjoying themselves right there. OSC was so right about the neighborhood issue. There's still so much to be done to reconstruct the towns and cities into places where people can live with themselves, with nature, and each other. But the cynic in me says that there are so many consmerist-minded organizations (oil, transportation, etc..) that would fight the creations of true neighborhoods. I often think it would be interesting to see how a modern version of the company-run town would work. If, for instance, Wal-mart would have apartments on top of there store for their employees to live in, or have a major factory have a school where the children can go to and a general store to go to, much like the AFB at Warner Robbins.
Just some thoughts. It's time we start getting to know our neighbors, and not just a brief nod as we fly to the Malls, like some shining city in the desert. Which, if the lack of rain continues, is just what Stonecrest will become.
We're having a drought here in Georgia...wildfires happening to the south of us and no rain to be seen. I wish we could get the rain that's being dumped on Oklahoma and whatnot and transfer it over here. And it's not just us... you see pictures in the news constantly of countries that are in drought, and people that die of no water, etc...Some sociologists and environmentalists predict that the next global war will occur over water supplies, and not religion or land or whatever.
But I'm here to tell you right now that if the whole country dries up, and the grasses die and trees are engulfed in flames, that the Mall at Stonecrest will have deep green grass and dew-laiden bushes every day. Obviously the watering ban means nothing to them. There's probably some exception made to big businesses or for places where appearance would affect profit. I have seen on more than one occasion the sprinklers being on in the middle of the day, well past the watering restriction times. And the sprinklers are not always aimed at the vegetation. I can honestly say that Stonecrest Mall has the cleanest pavement around. The cement will never thirst. When the summer progresses, and towns announce that they have 30 days of water left, let us all thank Stonecrest for having such beautiful green lawns, instead of water for the citizens to drink.
Of course, it's not just Stonecrest that is the culprit here. I've seen GC&SU do the same thing. Middle of summer, drought conditions, but the azaelas in back of Atkinson Hall were watered every day.
The reasoning for this goes back to my last post. The goal for the mall is to provide an island, an oasis, if you will, from everyday life. A place where you can spend the day with beautiful landscaping and inviting smells and sounds, with Target built like a castle on the hill, surrounded by lush trees and camoflauging brush that hides the parking lots. All of this so you can spend the day at the mall, inside, spending your money on whatever your heart desires. Further, the mall is isolated from the rest of the world. You have to drive 20 minutes to get there. But the mall wouldn't have it any other way. And I'm sure that the Sam's Club loves it, since they have gas pumps all ready to take you home. And when the suburban sprawl gets too close, we'll build another mall, maybe out near Social Circle, and we can all drive a half hour to escape our lives for an afternoon of consmerist ecstacy. I think that the people at Atlantic Station in Atlanta have it figured out right. That's the way we should do it. And they can use the water, in my opinion, because people are living, shopping, and enjoying themselves right there. OSC was so right about the neighborhood issue. There's still so much to be done to reconstruct the towns and cities into places where people can live with themselves, with nature, and each other. But the cynic in me says that there are so many consmerist-minded organizations (oil, transportation, etc..) that would fight the creations of true neighborhoods. I often think it would be interesting to see how a modern version of the company-run town would work. If, for instance, Wal-mart would have apartments on top of there store for their employees to live in, or have a major factory have a school where the children can go to and a general store to go to, much like the AFB at Warner Robbins.
Just some thoughts. It's time we start getting to know our neighbors, and not just a brief nod as we fly to the Malls, like some shining city in the desert. Which, if the lack of rain continues, is just what Stonecrest will become.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Link to an Excellent Blog! (Life Without Cars)
You absolutely have to go to Orson Scott Card's website and read his latest essay "Life Without Cars." It goes with a lot of my imaginings about recreating life here on Earth to give Nature back most of its land while giving mankind a place to live. Of course, I'm thinking more of in the future where public transportation is commonly of the high tech nature that Japan has currently, where commercial buildings such as grocery stores and the like are totally underground, much like Washington DC has below their hotels near the Metro, and where everyone has an apartment of suitable size in buildings where electricity, water, etc... are all taken care of in a joint manner, ecologically sound and economically viable. But OSC's essay is a good start.
Of course, none of this can happen because the car industry would balk at the whole idea. Not to mention the oil industry, the department and road building industry, construction, big business, and almost everyone else involved with Consumerism in America. I'm not talking about Capitalism, but the ideology that says to make as much money now as possible, the heck with the future, and who cares about the people, the environment, or anyone else as long as the funds pour in.
But I'm a little cynical about this world. Anyway, here's the link to OSC's amazing blog. Feel free to read his other essays about world topics. Good stuff.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-08-1.html
Of course, none of this can happen because the car industry would balk at the whole idea. Not to mention the oil industry, the department and road building industry, construction, big business, and almost everyone else involved with Consumerism in America. I'm not talking about Capitalism, but the ideology that says to make as much money now as possible, the heck with the future, and who cares about the people, the environment, or anyone else as long as the funds pour in.
But I'm a little cynical about this world. Anyway, here's the link to OSC's amazing blog. Feel free to read his other essays about world topics. Good stuff.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-08-1.html
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Anger
First off, I'm not going to say much about the Virginia Tech incident, since most everyone else has already mentioned it, and I think it's clear that it had the same effect on everyone, from college students who remember their own dorm lives, to American citizens in general. There is, however, one thing to be said. In all the news reports I've seen over the past couple of days, only one anchor has expressed the same feelings I have had over the past little bit. Glenn Beck showed how superficial the media is being about the whole thing, how they try to make you emotional over the thing, only so you can watch more, so that the people who are making money off of advertisements can continue making money. He talked about the real emotions that all of us felt after Columbine, and 9/11, but now not so much after this, since we've all become desensitized to violence over the years. It doesn't shock us anymore. Not much shocks me, anymore.
But one thing I do want to talk about is the individual emotion that caused all this. Anger. Anger is plaque that forms around the heart and slowly eats away at it, until there's nothing left but anger beating blood through the body. The killer was dead long before he killed himself. It's the worse emotion that you can feel, because it only feeds on the injustices in this world, but at the same time, making you incapable of doing anything about them. You suppress it down and it festers there, like some cancer, until there's nothing left but that anger. I had that, many years ago, but unlike many people, I have worked it free and dissolved it, because the only way of getting rid of it is by becoming friends with people, by caring about others, and by loving them. And so many people nowadays, even ones with relationships and whatnot, aren't truly letting go of that anger.
The reason I chose to write about this is that I see way too much anger as I go through my life. At work, in the people my brother deals with everyday, in the people that create the songs and the TV shows that influence everyone. Anger is there. And it doesn't have to. Sure, everyone can be frustrated. I'm frustrated everyday, about something I can't get done, or because of the differences of opinions between me and my co-workers, or whatever. But frustration is simply the liquid form of anger. It's dissoluble, it's easy to get rid of. And you dissolve it by caring, by feeling love and being around people you care about. Negativity is neutralized by Positive emotions. And all this sounds so self-helpish and superficial. But it's not, since it's validated by the philosophies I ascribe to. From Christianity to Aristotle's ideas, from William Blake to Henry David Thoreau, the path through anger, cynicism, and frustration is shown by "loving your neighbors as yourself." Frankly, it's hard to do, because the only way to get through an Anger-affected heart is to try and become their friend, through understanding and forgiveness, and it's so hard to do. But we have to try. It's what we're all here for. If we can't do something positive to affect the lives of the people around us, then we have no purpose. Anyway, my opinion on all this is that we have to take the hateful words that spew out of the killer's anger-hardened heart, and irradiate the same feelings in our own bodies. We don't want to become like him. I hope that this situation is a cathartic one for all of us. I hope so, I really do.
But one thing I do want to talk about is the individual emotion that caused all this. Anger. Anger is plaque that forms around the heart and slowly eats away at it, until there's nothing left but anger beating blood through the body. The killer was dead long before he killed himself. It's the worse emotion that you can feel, because it only feeds on the injustices in this world, but at the same time, making you incapable of doing anything about them. You suppress it down and it festers there, like some cancer, until there's nothing left but that anger. I had that, many years ago, but unlike many people, I have worked it free and dissolved it, because the only way of getting rid of it is by becoming friends with people, by caring about others, and by loving them. And so many people nowadays, even ones with relationships and whatnot, aren't truly letting go of that anger.
The reason I chose to write about this is that I see way too much anger as I go through my life. At work, in the people my brother deals with everyday, in the people that create the songs and the TV shows that influence everyone. Anger is there. And it doesn't have to. Sure, everyone can be frustrated. I'm frustrated everyday, about something I can't get done, or because of the differences of opinions between me and my co-workers, or whatever. But frustration is simply the liquid form of anger. It's dissoluble, it's easy to get rid of. And you dissolve it by caring, by feeling love and being around people you care about. Negativity is neutralized by Positive emotions. And all this sounds so self-helpish and superficial. But it's not, since it's validated by the philosophies I ascribe to. From Christianity to Aristotle's ideas, from William Blake to Henry David Thoreau, the path through anger, cynicism, and frustration is shown by "loving your neighbors as yourself." Frankly, it's hard to do, because the only way to get through an Anger-affected heart is to try and become their friend, through understanding and forgiveness, and it's so hard to do. But we have to try. It's what we're all here for. If we can't do something positive to affect the lives of the people around us, then we have no purpose. Anyway, my opinion on all this is that we have to take the hateful words that spew out of the killer's anger-hardened heart, and irradiate the same feelings in our own bodies. We don't want to become like him. I hope that this situation is a cathartic one for all of us. I hope so, I really do.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Leaving Early, Pacman Jones, and Hip Hop
Should we, at a restaurant, leave before desert? When the sweetest part of the dinner is about to take place, when the talking comes to a climax, would we just get up, pay the bill, and leave? I find that most people would do just that, when it comes to other things. We went to the Bill Gaither Homecoming concert last night, and I was astonished to see people who had paid good money for their tickets get up and leave with a good thirty minutes left in the concert. They missed some wonderful singing, sweet laughter, fellowship, desert, as I would call it. But they had the overwhelming urge to leave, sensing some need to get out of the Gwinnett arena before everyone else. This type of behavior has never made sense to me. You bought your tickets, knowing where you were to go-in this case being an arena in Gwinnett county-and by buying those tickets, you had acknowledged the traffic problem and should have stayed until the end of the program. The same thing should have be said for sports games. Some of the most exciting plays in sports history have been missed by the people who, sensing the need to beat the traffic, left before the game was over. But even if the game is well in hand by one team or the other, that is no excuse to leave a game you have paid good money to witness. The exception for this is weather or other emergencies, since it is not worth becoming ill to satisfy what I consider a business contract made in good faith between you and the teams (or singers) you go to witness. Of course, my family did leave the OU-USC Orange Bowl in 2005, since we were losing 55-19. But it wasn't supposed to be that cold in Miami, be that physical or psychological.
******
Today on Outside the Lines, they brought up the issues of racial discrimination in sports. It brought up a very interesting point, connecting together a lot of the current issues that have happened recently (the Imus remarks, the lifting of charges from the Duke Lacrosse team, the suspending of Pacman Jones from the Tenn. Titans.) with an overall argument dealing with underlying issues that have surrounded African-Americans for at least a hundred years. Let me back up and set some background. After the Civil War, there was a debate between two African-American scholars, WEB Dubois and Booker T. Washington. There was a sociological argument in how former slaves should be brought up to the social level of the rest of society. One (and I must apologize, I don't remember which one said what, it's been a long time) said that since the slaves had been brought here against their will, and oppressed by their white owners, that it was up to the rest of society to help them rise financially and otherwise to a position equal to that of the rest of America. The other (and I think it was Washington that said this, I think) said that it was up to the African Americans to educate themselves and earn their way up to the level of their white counterparts. I am greatly generalizing this, but the argument survives today in the platforms of the political parties. I won't go into this right now, but it's obvious what who believes.
Anyway, I thought the points that OTL was making today were very good points, not only from the area of sports, but of all areas of society where the perception of the African American lifestyle is an issue. They brought up Pacman Jones in that the NFL was trying to change the perception that people have on the African American players that make up that percentage of the rosters. It was amazing, an article showing the lineup of NFL players that had been arrested in the past year. 41 players all together, 2 white, 39 black. The image of this made for a remarkable picture in the article Newsweek put together. Why has the NFL and society failed these players? Or more specifically, what makes the players think that they can do whatever they have been charged with (which goes from DUI to drugs to domestic abuse), and do it without any inkling that they are doing something that is morally wrong? It is a shame that two gifted quarterbacks, Payton Manning and Michael Vick (or his brother Marcus) have gone in two totally different directions when it comes to the ethical behavior of the individual players. It could also be argued that African American music, or more specifically, current hip-hop music, would also condone the behaviors that those 41 players have been arrested for. The answer to this came from a newspaper editor on OTL, who said that in music, they are writing about things they are familiar with. This is a common and often helpful way of creating an artistic work. If you write or paint or compose something that is totally unfamiliar to you, it is more of a chance that it will be unsatisfactory to the people who have some more common link to the subject that you are writing about. But why should we except the condoning of behaviors outlined in hip-hop music? Doesn't this make it all the more important to try to stamp out the behaviors and attitudes that make the songs relevant in the first place? The shooting of police officers or the abuse of females are ethical issues (murder and abuse) that need to be rectified. It is this point that either the government should step in and regulate the actions of its people (an option that would be totally undemocratic and would result in major upheaval), or the people who are singing about these things would need to correct the attitudes themselves. If the songs were meant as a corrective measure, like many folk songs were in the 60's, this would not be an issue. However, it's clear that most songs that contain mature elements are almost in celebration of the culture. How can a culture be celebrated if, in the vast majority of instances, that culture is in violation of ethical standards that have been universally accepted?
Further, it is this argument that justifies the suspensions brought on by the NFL to Pacman Jones and others, but that it is only a band-aid to what really needs to happen. In this instance, the NFL office is the government that is trying to regulate the behavior of its denizens. It should be up to the individual players to govern their own individual behaviors. To this end, the ideas I've brought up in past blogs seem to fit in here. The behaviors often seen in people such as Pacman Jones and artists like Bobby Brown only further denigrate the African American race to the whole of America. Which is most unfortunate, for the freeing of the slaves in the 1860's, and the civil rights movement a century later, should have resulted in the uplifting of a society of people up to the standards by which we all deem to live. Martin Luther King Jr. would be appalled at the way some African Americans see their society today. And of course, applying that to the rest of society, Imus thought it perfectly acceptable to talk about the African American society in the way that some of them refer to themselves as. I don't agree with all this, but it happened. I agree with Washington that members of all races and cultures should endevor to follow the ethical values ingrained in every one of us, and individually, follow "the greater good" and make the world not such a cynical place. Such is the path we take through the world of Experience (Blake).
******
Today on Outside the Lines, they brought up the issues of racial discrimination in sports. It brought up a very interesting point, connecting together a lot of the current issues that have happened recently (the Imus remarks, the lifting of charges from the Duke Lacrosse team, the suspending of Pacman Jones from the Tenn. Titans.) with an overall argument dealing with underlying issues that have surrounded African-Americans for at least a hundred years. Let me back up and set some background. After the Civil War, there was a debate between two African-American scholars, WEB Dubois and Booker T. Washington. There was a sociological argument in how former slaves should be brought up to the social level of the rest of society. One (and I must apologize, I don't remember which one said what, it's been a long time) said that since the slaves had been brought here against their will, and oppressed by their white owners, that it was up to the rest of society to help them rise financially and otherwise to a position equal to that of the rest of America. The other (and I think it was Washington that said this, I think) said that it was up to the African Americans to educate themselves and earn their way up to the level of their white counterparts. I am greatly generalizing this, but the argument survives today in the platforms of the political parties. I won't go into this right now, but it's obvious what who believes.
Anyway, I thought the points that OTL was making today were very good points, not only from the area of sports, but of all areas of society where the perception of the African American lifestyle is an issue. They brought up Pacman Jones in that the NFL was trying to change the perception that people have on the African American players that make up that percentage of the rosters. It was amazing, an article showing the lineup of NFL players that had been arrested in the past year. 41 players all together, 2 white, 39 black. The image of this made for a remarkable picture in the article Newsweek put together. Why has the NFL and society failed these players? Or more specifically, what makes the players think that they can do whatever they have been charged with (which goes from DUI to drugs to domestic abuse), and do it without any inkling that they are doing something that is morally wrong? It is a shame that two gifted quarterbacks, Payton Manning and Michael Vick (or his brother Marcus) have gone in two totally different directions when it comes to the ethical behavior of the individual players. It could also be argued that African American music, or more specifically, current hip-hop music, would also condone the behaviors that those 41 players have been arrested for. The answer to this came from a newspaper editor on OTL, who said that in music, they are writing about things they are familiar with. This is a common and often helpful way of creating an artistic work. If you write or paint or compose something that is totally unfamiliar to you, it is more of a chance that it will be unsatisfactory to the people who have some more common link to the subject that you are writing about. But why should we except the condoning of behaviors outlined in hip-hop music? Doesn't this make it all the more important to try to stamp out the behaviors and attitudes that make the songs relevant in the first place? The shooting of police officers or the abuse of females are ethical issues (murder and abuse) that need to be rectified. It is this point that either the government should step in and regulate the actions of its people (an option that would be totally undemocratic and would result in major upheaval), or the people who are singing about these things would need to correct the attitudes themselves. If the songs were meant as a corrective measure, like many folk songs were in the 60's, this would not be an issue. However, it's clear that most songs that contain mature elements are almost in celebration of the culture. How can a culture be celebrated if, in the vast majority of instances, that culture is in violation of ethical standards that have been universally accepted?
Further, it is this argument that justifies the suspensions brought on by the NFL to Pacman Jones and others, but that it is only a band-aid to what really needs to happen. In this instance, the NFL office is the government that is trying to regulate the behavior of its denizens. It should be up to the individual players to govern their own individual behaviors. To this end, the ideas I've brought up in past blogs seem to fit in here. The behaviors often seen in people such as Pacman Jones and artists like Bobby Brown only further denigrate the African American race to the whole of America. Which is most unfortunate, for the freeing of the slaves in the 1860's, and the civil rights movement a century later, should have resulted in the uplifting of a society of people up to the standards by which we all deem to live. Martin Luther King Jr. would be appalled at the way some African Americans see their society today. And of course, applying that to the rest of society, Imus thought it perfectly acceptable to talk about the African American society in the way that some of them refer to themselves as. I don't agree with all this, but it happened. I agree with Washington that members of all races and cultures should endevor to follow the ethical values ingrained in every one of us, and individually, follow "the greater good" and make the world not such a cynical place. Such is the path we take through the world of Experience (Blake).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
