I used to think I didn't have a type. When asked I couldn't really describe what type of person I was attracted to because I had no way to quantify it. For me that is the essence of attraction. You may know you like certain things such as blue eyes, brown hair, or whatever, but it takes a very specific combination of all those things for you to be attracted to it. So how do you know what it is you're really attracted to? Can it ever be broken down into individual characteristics or is it the combination of them all? I suppose it could be like a painting. The individual colors or brush strokes by themselves might be nice, but it must be done a certain way for you to really like it beyond just the sum of its parts.
What causes us to be attracted to someone or something? There must be a part of the brain that stores the information on what's appealing to us. And is that information hardwired into us in a way that we will always be attracted to that particular something? Sure we ourselves change and with that tastes change over time, but do those tastes change because of something physical in us or is something else at work? Some guys will always prefer young women to those of their own age. Those tastes have to come from somewhere. It could be that we were built to be attracted to something before we had a choice, which would indicate there was purpose or even a plan to how we're created.
Many people believe that homosexuality is something your born with. If that's true then the question would have to be "Why?" I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but if a person is truly born that way then was it just random or was their something at work that caused that to be true? Strictly speaking from a continuation of the species point of view, homosexuality is a dead end. People who are gay are not built with the desire to be with the opposite sex and that's pretty much required to continue any sort of bloodline. Now granted with today's technology it's not as big an issue. And maybe that's part of it. Maybe somehow our bodies know that it's no longer required that a man and woman be together to create a child. There are other options that can be used to pass along our genes to the next generation. I don't know if there has been a rise in homosexuality in the last hundred years or even last fifty. It's been reported that anywhere from 2% to 13% of the Western population are homosexual. I doubt very much that there is recorded data for anything farther back than the last century. Kinsey reported in 1953 that about 46% of men responded sexually to people of both genders, which would suggest that many people may feel the inclination at some point, but only a fraction act on it.
Of course the other side of the argument is that homosexuality is a choice. That instead of being born with an innate attraction to the same gender, you somehow decide to go that route. It really comes back to the whole Nature vs Nurture debate. My question is that if homosexuality is a choice then wouldn't that mean any type of attraction is based on choice? Can that be true though? Think about who/what you're attracted to. I suppose you can force yourself to become attracted to something, almost like an acquired taste. Still I don't know that I have much choice when it comes to my attraction to Salma Hayek. It's not as though I consciously decided that she was what I was going be attracted to. It was automatic. And again what is it about her that is the epitome of attractiveness to me? Was there something in my life that made me find dark hair and skin was more attractive than blond hair and fair skin? Or was it when I was born that I was already predetermined to be attracted to her?
Is there such a thing as someone who is universally attractive? Meaning that regardless of preference you would recognize them as being empirically attractive. Some people may find beauty in one thing where others only see ugliness. Scientists have discovered that the smell of death is universal so that all species recognize it. Now it depends on the species what they do with that information. Some will see it as a sign that there is potentially food near by. Others will take it as a warning. My point is that everyone everywhere knows about death's smell. If that's the case then can it be that everyone everywhere would recognize something attractive?
In the end I wonder if people really know where their attractions come from. By understanding where they come from one might grasp how to control them a little better. Maybe it's like art where you know what you like, even if you don't know why you like it.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
On Autopilot
Lately it feels as though I'm not in control of myself. That's not to say that I feel out of control. It's more that I'm in some kind of strange autopilot and that what I do or say has very little conscious control from me.
Have you ever woken up and found yourself at work, but you don't really remember how exactly you got there? Obviously your mind was in charge of taking from your bed to work, but you weren't fully aware of the fact that you were doing it. Maybe you can chalk it up to muscle memory or your mind's capability to run routine tasks without input from you. So if you aren't the one in charge of what's going on with your own body then who has control over you?
I've known several people who feel the need to constantly be in control of the world around them. It's a weird idea though because the world is inherently out of control at any given point. I've talked about how even when you think you're in control, you may in fact be experiencing the illusion of control. Still these people worry and stress about all the things that they must have power over, because if for some reason they aren't in charge then...well I'm not entirely sure what they believe will happen. I remember asking someone once what would happen if they couldn't have things a certain way. I asked what would they do if they couldn't be in charge. The answer I got was something along the lines of "If I couldn't have it my way then I wouldn't have it any other way", which I suppose is to be expected because it's a hypothetical question. If one was forced to give up control about something you have two options: 1) Accept it or 2) Fight against it. There is a somewhat controversial idea to break OCD-type behavior where you force the person to experience whatever it is they are being compulsive about. For instance someone has to open and close a door five times before they can walk through it, well you don't allow them to open it more than once and then force them to walk through it. This way it makes them understand that they can continue on even though their brain is screaming at them that it can't unless a certain criteria is met.
My point is that sometimes our own mind is working against us for control. So in a sense we are fighting ourselves for control and in some cases we lose the battle against ourselves. When that happens I wonder where we go. I think everyone has experienced this one. You're reading a book. You get to the end of the page or several pages and realize you have no idea what you just read. Your body was in the process of reading, which was controlled by your mind in some way, and yet you yourself were no longer conscious of what was happening around you. So where did you go while that was happening? You could have been thinking about any number of things, but essentially you walked away from your body to do something else. The same thing happens when you're in class or a meeting. If it were possible to visualize, I bet during a meeting you'd see several people leave their bodies at various points, snapping back into place as needed.
Going back to what I was originally talking about. I feel like my mind and body are running without me. I'm aware of what's going on though. When asked a question the answer comes automatically, even though I didn't really think about it. I do various tasks and it's almost like I'm watching someone else do them. It's almost as though I'm a passenger in my own body. Occasionally I regain control and carry on with things as normal, but I can never tell when another part of me is going to push my conscious mind into autopilot again. It makes me wonder if my body can run without me behind the wheel then what could I be doing while some other aspect of me takes care of the mundane tasks.
Have you ever woken up and found yourself at work, but you don't really remember how exactly you got there? Obviously your mind was in charge of taking from your bed to work, but you weren't fully aware of the fact that you were doing it. Maybe you can chalk it up to muscle memory or your mind's capability to run routine tasks without input from you. So if you aren't the one in charge of what's going on with your own body then who has control over you?
I've known several people who feel the need to constantly be in control of the world around them. It's a weird idea though because the world is inherently out of control at any given point. I've talked about how even when you think you're in control, you may in fact be experiencing the illusion of control. Still these people worry and stress about all the things that they must have power over, because if for some reason they aren't in charge then...well I'm not entirely sure what they believe will happen. I remember asking someone once what would happen if they couldn't have things a certain way. I asked what would they do if they couldn't be in charge. The answer I got was something along the lines of "If I couldn't have it my way then I wouldn't have it any other way", which I suppose is to be expected because it's a hypothetical question. If one was forced to give up control about something you have two options: 1) Accept it or 2) Fight against it. There is a somewhat controversial idea to break OCD-type behavior where you force the person to experience whatever it is they are being compulsive about. For instance someone has to open and close a door five times before they can walk through it, well you don't allow them to open it more than once and then force them to walk through it. This way it makes them understand that they can continue on even though their brain is screaming at them that it can't unless a certain criteria is met.
My point is that sometimes our own mind is working against us for control. So in a sense we are fighting ourselves for control and in some cases we lose the battle against ourselves. When that happens I wonder where we go. I think everyone has experienced this one. You're reading a book. You get to the end of the page or several pages and realize you have no idea what you just read. Your body was in the process of reading, which was controlled by your mind in some way, and yet you yourself were no longer conscious of what was happening around you. So where did you go while that was happening? You could have been thinking about any number of things, but essentially you walked away from your body to do something else. The same thing happens when you're in class or a meeting. If it were possible to visualize, I bet during a meeting you'd see several people leave their bodies at various points, snapping back into place as needed.
Going back to what I was originally talking about. I feel like my mind and body are running without me. I'm aware of what's going on though. When asked a question the answer comes automatically, even though I didn't really think about it. I do various tasks and it's almost like I'm watching someone else do them. It's almost as though I'm a passenger in my own body. Occasionally I regain control and carry on with things as normal, but I can never tell when another part of me is going to push my conscious mind into autopilot again. It makes me wonder if my body can run without me behind the wheel then what could I be doing while some other aspect of me takes care of the mundane tasks.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
On Language
We learn our speech patterns from our parents and siblings. Really anyone who was around while we were learning how to speak has a major influence on how we talk now. In fact the way we learn to talk is just watching and listening to people who already know which words mean what. It's been said that is the most effective way to learn a different language. Sure you can take courses or listen to CDs like Rosetta Stone and those are probably helpful, but the best way to really get into it is to immerse yourself in the new language. I may have mentioned this before, but I was told a long time ago that to really cement a different language in your head is to not think of a word's equivalent in English. For instance don't think that Milk in Spanish is Leche. Instead know that Leche is milk. When you picture a glass of milk, know that it's leche. It's kind of a hard concept for people because it's in our nature to try and find comparisons to what we already know.
We tend to mimic those around us, even if we're doing it unconsciously. That's how people of a certain group form accents. One person says something a specific way and other people may adopt it in such a way that everyone says it that way. Eventually that's just how people talk. If you've spent an extended amount of time with people who have an accent you may notice yourself starting to pick up their speech patterns, but eventually you'll revert back to how you used to talk once you're away from it. It makes me wonder if our brains form permanent speech patterns at an early age and if so, what does it take to alter them. I know people that were raised in another country and have been in the US for twenty years or more and they still have an accent from their country of origin. What is it that makes it so a speech pattern is more or less our default? Our speech patterns are as unique as our fingerprints.
While we're learning how to talk we start to notice that certain words have more impact than others. At first we're just so excited to be saying anything that we say everything, without knowing what it means exactly. It's only by testing out different words do we start to realize how they affect other people. I remember as a kid realizing what the word Hate meant. Before I knew the word I already knew that I hated certain things. I just didn't know how to say it. Then there was a point when I found out just how powerful a word it was when I told one of my parents that I hated them. As a child I didn't fully grasp that saying that was a bad thing. At the time I was probably mad at them and didn't like them very much so I said the word I associated with that. I can still picture the reaction they had to me saying it. If I had punched them in the face, it would have been less shocking. And as a child you start to keep track of things that generate a big effect. So if I was angry with my parents I'd throw out the word Hate like a verbal grenade because I knew it would hurt them. In a weird way it was like I was handed a loaded gun. I didn't know the kind of power I held.
Words themselves don't really have meaning. Well they do, but what's more important is the intended meaning or intention behind the word. You can make any word into a bad one by changing your intention as you use it. I could turn the word Smurf into something as bad as Fuck, even though to someone else using it, it may mean something completely different. And I used Smurf as my example because those little blue guys in fact did just that. I've known several women who can't stand the word Bitch. For them it's one of the worst things you could call a woman and that's because the intention behind the word was so ugly and demeaning. Then again there are other women who use it so much that it's essentially lost any of its power.
There are some words out there that once you say them, you know they're bad. Just the sound of them indicates something mean or crude. Then there are words that sound like they should be bad, but aren't. I remember reading a Stephen King novel back when I was a kid. I came across a word that I hadn't seen before. In the story it was used as an insult, but it had also been used in another way that confused me. So being me I decided to go ask my mom what it meant. "Mom, what does Cunt mean?" I'm guessing that was a bit of a shock. Needless to say, she told me to go look it up for myself, which saved her from attempting to explain what it was and where exactly it would be located. Who decides that a word is bad anyway? Somewhere along the way people had to collectively decide that this word was bad and this word wasn't. I think as a society we associate negative things to certain words, even if the word was originally never intended to be treated badly. The word Fuck for instance is a bad word for a good thing. Of course it's been bastardized so much that like Smurf, it can have just about any connotation.
Notice how certain words are no longer as taboo as they once were. George Carlin had a nice list of seven words that would never be used on television. Strange how 30 years after he said that you can watch FX, which is essentially basic cable, and hear most of those words. Does that mean we're getting to a point where we no longer have words that are "bad", just words that people tolerate to a certain extent?
We tend to mimic those around us, even if we're doing it unconsciously. That's how people of a certain group form accents. One person says something a specific way and other people may adopt it in such a way that everyone says it that way. Eventually that's just how people talk. If you've spent an extended amount of time with people who have an accent you may notice yourself starting to pick up their speech patterns, but eventually you'll revert back to how you used to talk once you're away from it. It makes me wonder if our brains form permanent speech patterns at an early age and if so, what does it take to alter them. I know people that were raised in another country and have been in the US for twenty years or more and they still have an accent from their country of origin. What is it that makes it so a speech pattern is more or less our default? Our speech patterns are as unique as our fingerprints.
While we're learning how to talk we start to notice that certain words have more impact than others. At first we're just so excited to be saying anything that we say everything, without knowing what it means exactly. It's only by testing out different words do we start to realize how they affect other people. I remember as a kid realizing what the word Hate meant. Before I knew the word I already knew that I hated certain things. I just didn't know how to say it. Then there was a point when I found out just how powerful a word it was when I told one of my parents that I hated them. As a child I didn't fully grasp that saying that was a bad thing. At the time I was probably mad at them and didn't like them very much so I said the word I associated with that. I can still picture the reaction they had to me saying it. If I had punched them in the face, it would have been less shocking. And as a child you start to keep track of things that generate a big effect. So if I was angry with my parents I'd throw out the word Hate like a verbal grenade because I knew it would hurt them. In a weird way it was like I was handed a loaded gun. I didn't know the kind of power I held.
Words themselves don't really have meaning. Well they do, but what's more important is the intended meaning or intention behind the word. You can make any word into a bad one by changing your intention as you use it. I could turn the word Smurf into something as bad as Fuck, even though to someone else using it, it may mean something completely different. And I used Smurf as my example because those little blue guys in fact did just that. I've known several women who can't stand the word Bitch. For them it's one of the worst things you could call a woman and that's because the intention behind the word was so ugly and demeaning. Then again there are other women who use it so much that it's essentially lost any of its power.
There are some words out there that once you say them, you know they're bad. Just the sound of them indicates something mean or crude. Then there are words that sound like they should be bad, but aren't. I remember reading a Stephen King novel back when I was a kid. I came across a word that I hadn't seen before. In the story it was used as an insult, but it had also been used in another way that confused me. So being me I decided to go ask my mom what it meant. "Mom, what does Cunt mean?" I'm guessing that was a bit of a shock. Needless to say, she told me to go look it up for myself, which saved her from attempting to explain what it was and where exactly it would be located. Who decides that a word is bad anyway? Somewhere along the way people had to collectively decide that this word was bad and this word wasn't. I think as a society we associate negative things to certain words, even if the word was originally never intended to be treated badly. The word Fuck for instance is a bad word for a good thing. Of course it's been bastardized so much that like Smurf, it can have just about any connotation.
Notice how certain words are no longer as taboo as they once were. George Carlin had a nice list of seven words that would never be used on television. Strange how 30 years after he said that you can watch FX, which is essentially basic cable, and hear most of those words. Does that mean we're getting to a point where we no longer have words that are "bad", just words that people tolerate to a certain extent?
On The First
Mushrooms are kind of a mixed bag when you think about it. There are kinds out there that are delicious and tend to be fantastic on burgers or salads. Then there are kinds that will just plain kill you, regardless of how delightful they may taste. It makes me wonder who was the first person to try a mushroom and which kind they tried. I would imagine if it was the poisonous kind then his friends may have looked at each other and decided to go ahead and skip eating the fungus, which I would imagine would have been a setback for mushroom recipes. Of course if they sampled the not-going-to-kill-you kind then everyone involved would be happy to know there was another food source growing in shady areas. There is, however, a third scenario. This is the one that got me thinking about this whole situation in the first place. I have a friend who is very allergic to mushrooms. Even touching them causes problems. I try to imagine someone like her coming in contact with mushrooms for the first time, before anyone had an idea that they could be eaten, and wonder what would do when they had an allergic reaction? Think about if the first guy to try mushrooms had a fatal mushroom allergy and died after trying them for the first time. Would mushrooms have been treated much like poison ivy, as in you avoid it at all costs?
In a lot of cases I bet people think that a person would have had to be very hungry to eat certain things for the first time. Look at the lobster or crab. They are like giant underwater insects and while they're moving around, there is very little about them that looks appealing. Somewhere along the way though someone got the idea that they would crack them open and eat whatever was inside. I don't know if you've ever had raw crab before, but it's not a very enjoyable meal. In fact there is a very good chance that when eating raw crab you can get sick. I wonder if someone tried it raw first and decided to cook it after they stopped vomiting or somehow a burning crab came screaming from the ocean and someone just figured it smelled good enough to eat. Then again maybe it wasn't desperation at all that prompted the first bite. It could have been someone had something similar and decided to take a shot at those clawful creatures. I would like to thank whoever it was who figured out that melted butter goes great with them. Although to be fair, melted butter goes great with so many things.
Those examples are food related and I could go all day about different kinds of food that seem like things people would avoid rather than stuff into their maw. The first people to do things must be equal parts curious and crazy. Birds have been around for millions of years and I'm sure that ancient man saw them and wondered to themselves what it must be like to fly through the air. It takes a special kind of person to go beyond just wondering what it might be like to actually trying to figure out how to fly. The Wright Brothers get a lot of credit when it comes to flying, as well they should, but there were people studying flight long before they actually flew those hundred feet. Leonardo da Vinci conceived of an Ornithopter flying machine back in 1485, but never actually built it.
How is it that some people are able to make the mental leap to something that previously wasn't thought of before? Is it ever more than one person that comes up with the same idea at the same time? An example would be that while da Vinci was pondering the nuances of flight, was there someone somewhere else thinking the same exact thing? It's like the scene at the beginning of 2001 where ancient man is fiddling with the bone and notices that with enough force it could smash something. Then suddenly the idea spreads to everyone nearby. Soon those who learned the new idea can't remember a time when they didn't know it. The movie Inception makes reference that an idea is a lot like a virus in the way that it spreads. I don't know if there's ever been a calculation on the speed of thought, but I'm betting its speed grows exponentially as it passes from one person to another. Yell the word fire in a crowded room and the panic will spread faster than an actual fire, meaning the idea of a fire is like wildfire.
All this makes me wonder what firsts will we see next. You've heard the phrase "making progress in leaps and bounds" and that just shows that once an idea is introduced there is potentially no limit to what other ideas it may create. In 1946 ENIAC was shown as the world's first computer. Look at how far computers have come in a relatively short amount of time. Imagine what will happen when someone somewhere is the first to come up with whatever is next. People will wonder how is it that we've gone so long without thinking of that before?
In a lot of cases I bet people think that a person would have had to be very hungry to eat certain things for the first time. Look at the lobster or crab. They are like giant underwater insects and while they're moving around, there is very little about them that looks appealing. Somewhere along the way though someone got the idea that they would crack them open and eat whatever was inside. I don't know if you've ever had raw crab before, but it's not a very enjoyable meal. In fact there is a very good chance that when eating raw crab you can get sick. I wonder if someone tried it raw first and decided to cook it after they stopped vomiting or somehow a burning crab came screaming from the ocean and someone just figured it smelled good enough to eat. Then again maybe it wasn't desperation at all that prompted the first bite. It could have been someone had something similar and decided to take a shot at those clawful creatures. I would like to thank whoever it was who figured out that melted butter goes great with them. Although to be fair, melted butter goes great with so many things.
Those examples are food related and I could go all day about different kinds of food that seem like things people would avoid rather than stuff into their maw. The first people to do things must be equal parts curious and crazy. Birds have been around for millions of years and I'm sure that ancient man saw them and wondered to themselves what it must be like to fly through the air. It takes a special kind of person to go beyond just wondering what it might be like to actually trying to figure out how to fly. The Wright Brothers get a lot of credit when it comes to flying, as well they should, but there were people studying flight long before they actually flew those hundred feet. Leonardo da Vinci conceived of an Ornithopter flying machine back in 1485, but never actually built it.
How is it that some people are able to make the mental leap to something that previously wasn't thought of before? Is it ever more than one person that comes up with the same idea at the same time? An example would be that while da Vinci was pondering the nuances of flight, was there someone somewhere else thinking the same exact thing? It's like the scene at the beginning of 2001 where ancient man is fiddling with the bone and notices that with enough force it could smash something. Then suddenly the idea spreads to everyone nearby. Soon those who learned the new idea can't remember a time when they didn't know it. The movie Inception makes reference that an idea is a lot like a virus in the way that it spreads. I don't know if there's ever been a calculation on the speed of thought, but I'm betting its speed grows exponentially as it passes from one person to another. Yell the word fire in a crowded room and the panic will spread faster than an actual fire, meaning the idea of a fire is like wildfire.
All this makes me wonder what firsts will we see next. You've heard the phrase "making progress in leaps and bounds" and that just shows that once an idea is introduced there is potentially no limit to what other ideas it may create. In 1946 ENIAC was shown as the world's first computer. Look at how far computers have come in a relatively short amount of time. Imagine what will happen when someone somewhere is the first to come up with whatever is next. People will wonder how is it that we've gone so long without thinking of that before?
Monday, July 19, 2010
On Whatever
The word "Whatever" is one of the worst words in the English language. It is the epitome of indifference and in some cases it carries a lot of disrespect behind it. And to make matters worse there seems to be a growing trend for people to use it. Maybe it's a generational thing, where Generation X gets a lot of credit/blame for its over usage, but no matter who is to blame, the word breeds apathy.
Have you ever been with a group of people trying to decide something? It could be as simple as where to go for lunch. "Where do you want to go?" "What are you in the mood for?" We've all asked these questions and have been asked them more times than we can count. How many times have you heard the answer "I don't care. Whatever"? In some cases that means the person really has no preference one way or another, and that's perfectly fine because if you're like me then your only real concern about food is that it's in front of you at some point. Being around people like that can be a good thing because it means there are nearly no limits to the choices that can be offered. It can also be a bad thing because in some cases it means they've given up their opinion, forcing you to choose for them. Again with something like lunch choices it's not a big deal, but if you think about it they are giving you a measure of control over their choice. The other issue that comes from those situations is where you ask what someone wants and they say "Whatever", indicating that they don't care, however, when you offer an actual option they respond with "No, I don't like that place." or "I don't care, but just not there" Suddenly "Whatever" has gone from complete indifference to impassiveness with stipulations.
Now I'm aware that people are allowed to change their mind and put limitations on various things based on however they feel at the time. That's not where the problems usually come from. It's more from the fact that people tend to not always communicate what they want or more specifically don't want. When asked a question and you respond with "Whatever" that means you're saying you don't care what you get. Thing is that in most cases you will care about what you get, even if you only care a little bit. So in a situation where you're asked for your opinion and you respond with "Whatever" then you've essentially give up your right to complain about what's chosen. Sure it doesn't stop people from complaining, but at least for me I won't do anything to fix the problem. Why should I make an effort to resolve a problem when someone couldn't even make the effort to voice their own opinion when asked a direct question?
I mentioned also that the word "Whatever" can have some disrespectful connotations to it. We can thank the movie Clueless for making it even more popular than it needed to be. You're having a discussion with someone (or an argument depending on the person) and after you've said what you felt needed to be said they respond with only "Whatever". To me that shows a complete lack of respect for everything you've said. That word is bare minimum of acknowledgement that they even heard what you said. It also shows that they don't care about your thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure if it would have been worse for them to just keep talking as though you didn't say anything. I suppose the result is the same in that what you've said means nothing to the other person.
Lately it feels like we as a people are starting to be a "Whatever" society. It goes beyond just saying the word, but more about the thought process behind it. Watch the news. Listen to various politicians. Surf the web and look through articles talking about everything that's going on in the world. The typical response can be summed up by "Whatever". Now I know you can't live and die with everything that's going on around us. If you were to do that you'd lose yourself in all the tragedy that happens daily. Still it's easier to be apathetic about the things going on around us. To just think that unless it's happening to us it's not important enough for us to pay attention.
So the next time you're asked a question before just throwing out a glib "Whatever" response, think about how doing that means you're saying you don't care. You may not care about the question, but in most cases you'll care about the consequences. Usually at that point it's too late to do anything more than react to what's already happened rather than influence what could have happened.
Have you ever been with a group of people trying to decide something? It could be as simple as where to go for lunch. "Where do you want to go?" "What are you in the mood for?" We've all asked these questions and have been asked them more times than we can count. How many times have you heard the answer "I don't care. Whatever"? In some cases that means the person really has no preference one way or another, and that's perfectly fine because if you're like me then your only real concern about food is that it's in front of you at some point. Being around people like that can be a good thing because it means there are nearly no limits to the choices that can be offered. It can also be a bad thing because in some cases it means they've given up their opinion, forcing you to choose for them. Again with something like lunch choices it's not a big deal, but if you think about it they are giving you a measure of control over their choice. The other issue that comes from those situations is where you ask what someone wants and they say "Whatever", indicating that they don't care, however, when you offer an actual option they respond with "No, I don't like that place." or "I don't care, but just not there" Suddenly "Whatever" has gone from complete indifference to impassiveness with stipulations.
Now I'm aware that people are allowed to change their mind and put limitations on various things based on however they feel at the time. That's not where the problems usually come from. It's more from the fact that people tend to not always communicate what they want or more specifically don't want. When asked a question and you respond with "Whatever" that means you're saying you don't care what you get. Thing is that in most cases you will care about what you get, even if you only care a little bit. So in a situation where you're asked for your opinion and you respond with "Whatever" then you've essentially give up your right to complain about what's chosen. Sure it doesn't stop people from complaining, but at least for me I won't do anything to fix the problem. Why should I make an effort to resolve a problem when someone couldn't even make the effort to voice their own opinion when asked a direct question?
I mentioned also that the word "Whatever" can have some disrespectful connotations to it. We can thank the movie Clueless for making it even more popular than it needed to be. You're having a discussion with someone (or an argument depending on the person) and after you've said what you felt needed to be said they respond with only "Whatever". To me that shows a complete lack of respect for everything you've said. That word is bare minimum of acknowledgement that they even heard what you said. It also shows that they don't care about your thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure if it would have been worse for them to just keep talking as though you didn't say anything. I suppose the result is the same in that what you've said means nothing to the other person.
Lately it feels like we as a people are starting to be a "Whatever" society. It goes beyond just saying the word, but more about the thought process behind it. Watch the news. Listen to various politicians. Surf the web and look through articles talking about everything that's going on in the world. The typical response can be summed up by "Whatever". Now I know you can't live and die with everything that's going on around us. If you were to do that you'd lose yourself in all the tragedy that happens daily. Still it's easier to be apathetic about the things going on around us. To just think that unless it's happening to us it's not important enough for us to pay attention.
So the next time you're asked a question before just throwing out a glib "Whatever" response, think about how doing that means you're saying you don't care. You may not care about the question, but in most cases you'll care about the consequences. Usually at that point it's too late to do anything more than react to what's already happened rather than influence what could have happened.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
This is Ponderous
Why is it that action figures today, which have more points of articulation and more elaborate paint schemes, have less character than those made twenty years ago?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
On Darkness
When I was young I wasn't afraid of the dark. I was more afraid of what could be in the dark. It's that bit of unknown that scares everyone. Even if you're one who likes surprises and new things, the something, which can't be seen, that's waiting just beyond the light is terrifying. In the end the thing we fear is what we imagine to be the worst.
I grew up in a world of darkness. That's not being dramatic either. More than half the year was spent without very much light. Some days the most you'd get would be three to four hours of light. It got to be that you'd cherish what light you got and distract yourself from the fact that it was night at 3:00 in the afternoon. You got used to it because given enough time, people will get used to just about anything. Plus at the time I had nothing else to compare it to, so I didn't know that seventeen hours of darkness wasn't usual for most people. So it got to be that you accepted that your days were actually nights.
There were times when I was just bored with television or my toys. I needed to be outside of the house. I had spent all day in school and being inside was driving me mad. I'd get on my snow pants and coat and go outside. The light above the garage door would illuminate this strange desolate world that was our front yard. In order to break the boredom I would run around in the freezing cold. No matter what I did though, I would never get too far away from that light. It's not like I couldn't find my way back without it, but it was something of a beacon to let me know that safety was right there. It was easy to imagine that given the right circumstances that the cold, dark, frozen world might be there for good. That summer might never come or somehow I wouldn't be around to see it. Even still I ran around in the darkness, enjoying that slight bit of fear that reminded me that I was alive.
As I got older I went further and further into that blackness. It got to a point where I preferred the dark to the light. Being away from the light meant that I had a kind of freedom that I normally couldn't have. I could do what I wanted. I could say what I wanted. There was no one else around to say otherwise. I was alone in the dark and yet I wasn't lonely. I would stand out there, not able to see what was twenty feet in front of me, and not be afraid. Maybe I should have been because there were certainly dangers, but at the time it didn't matter. To this day I prefer night and the seemingly endless possibilities that comes with it. The fact that you can't see what's out there means you're not limited by anything. Instead everything is possible and maybe a little bit dangerous, but it's never boring.
Nietzsche said "When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you", which I suppose could be interpreted to mean that we become the very thing we fight against. Taken another way when you stare into the darkness and see nothing, are you looking outward or just seeing what's inside?
I grew up in a world of darkness. That's not being dramatic either. More than half the year was spent without very much light. Some days the most you'd get would be three to four hours of light. It got to be that you'd cherish what light you got and distract yourself from the fact that it was night at 3:00 in the afternoon. You got used to it because given enough time, people will get used to just about anything. Plus at the time I had nothing else to compare it to, so I didn't know that seventeen hours of darkness wasn't usual for most people. So it got to be that you accepted that your days were actually nights.
There were times when I was just bored with television or my toys. I needed to be outside of the house. I had spent all day in school and being inside was driving me mad. I'd get on my snow pants and coat and go outside. The light above the garage door would illuminate this strange desolate world that was our front yard. In order to break the boredom I would run around in the freezing cold. No matter what I did though, I would never get too far away from that light. It's not like I couldn't find my way back without it, but it was something of a beacon to let me know that safety was right there. It was easy to imagine that given the right circumstances that the cold, dark, frozen world might be there for good. That summer might never come or somehow I wouldn't be around to see it. Even still I ran around in the darkness, enjoying that slight bit of fear that reminded me that I was alive.
As I got older I went further and further into that blackness. It got to a point where I preferred the dark to the light. Being away from the light meant that I had a kind of freedom that I normally couldn't have. I could do what I wanted. I could say what I wanted. There was no one else around to say otherwise. I was alone in the dark and yet I wasn't lonely. I would stand out there, not able to see what was twenty feet in front of me, and not be afraid. Maybe I should have been because there were certainly dangers, but at the time it didn't matter. To this day I prefer night and the seemingly endless possibilities that comes with it. The fact that you can't see what's out there means you're not limited by anything. Instead everything is possible and maybe a little bit dangerous, but it's never boring.
Nietzsche said "When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you", which I suppose could be interpreted to mean that we become the very thing we fight against. Taken another way when you stare into the darkness and see nothing, are you looking outward or just seeing what's inside?
On Off
Have you ever had an off day? If you're like most people then probably yes. For some reason everything you do or say just don't sync up with everything else around you. So you get that feeling that things aren't quite right. I've been wondering what causes days like that. Is it something you've done or failed to do that put you into that situation? Is the world secretly working against you? And more importantly, what can you do to get things working right again?
There is the saying "waking up on the wrong side of the bed", which is usually associated with being in a bad mood, but I've taken to thinking about it a little differently. What if that one little detail threw something off? What if you weren't supposed to get up on that side of the bed, metaphorically? Instead of zigging, you zagged and for the rest of the day you're paying for that cosmic mistake. If that's possible, then you would be trying to play catch up back to where you were supposed to be. Life is full of chaos, which isn't as bad as it sounds. It just means there are so many things happening, not just to us, but around us, that it's nearly impossible to predict what could or would happen. While I don't believe in fate or destiny, I do believe that there are some things that are meant to be, if only because several unseen factors have forced the situation to turn out that way. I guess maybe that is just another definition of fate. Even if that's true, it doesn't prevent the use of free will. We are able to make choices that can change the course of our lives. Still maybe it's only the illusion of free will because everything has led us to that particular moment and what we think is our choice, is no choice at all. Maybe it's in those moments when we go against what was "supposed" to be that we drift into the off.
I suppose the cause is important, but in most cases you don't realize why you're in the situation you're in until it's passed. So what do you do while you're in it? I can't speak for anyone else, but I tend to fight against it. If something doesn't feel right, then I'm going to do what I can to correct the situation. The thing with that is that you can't fix something if you don't know what the problem is? Sure you might stumble upon the solution, but it's more likely that you're going to bumble around, possibly making things worse along the way. And you can't exactly go with it because it doesn't feel right. So you're stuck in this time that's all askew. Hopefully things will right themselves and you'll get back to where you're supposed to be.
What happens though when it lasts for more than just a day? Sure an off day can be chalked up to maybe one thing being not quite right, but if it goes on for longer then maybe it's not just getting up on the wrong side of the bed that's thrown you off. If you're still sticking with my theory, then maybe you're not where you're supposed to be and there is no easy fix or reset. I've had times where it felt like no matter what I was doing, it wasn't quite right and in some cases, just plain wrong. I knew this, but felt powerless to prevent it from happening. Sitting here I've been trying to think of how those situations resolved themselves. In most cases it was nothing that I did to make things better. It just sort of worked itself out. I guess there can be something said about the universe being somewhat self-correcting, although for some that may seem like a bit of a cop-out. Also there is the problem that if the universe is constantly moving and shifting certain events, what happens if the change is counter to what you want or need? Sometimes what we want is very different from what we need and it's easy to confuse the two. It could be that the choice we made to get what we wanted moved us out of position for what we needed and the feeling of being out of place isn't just a feeling, but a very real mismatch of time and space. If that's the case then it's probably very important for you figure out where things went astray, otherwise you might never get back to where you're supposed to be. That is assuming we're supposed to be anywhere and not right where we are right now.
There is the saying "waking up on the wrong side of the bed", which is usually associated with being in a bad mood, but I've taken to thinking about it a little differently. What if that one little detail threw something off? What if you weren't supposed to get up on that side of the bed, metaphorically? Instead of zigging, you zagged and for the rest of the day you're paying for that cosmic mistake. If that's possible, then you would be trying to play catch up back to where you were supposed to be. Life is full of chaos, which isn't as bad as it sounds. It just means there are so many things happening, not just to us, but around us, that it's nearly impossible to predict what could or would happen. While I don't believe in fate or destiny, I do believe that there are some things that are meant to be, if only because several unseen factors have forced the situation to turn out that way. I guess maybe that is just another definition of fate. Even if that's true, it doesn't prevent the use of free will. We are able to make choices that can change the course of our lives. Still maybe it's only the illusion of free will because everything has led us to that particular moment and what we think is our choice, is no choice at all. Maybe it's in those moments when we go against what was "supposed" to be that we drift into the off.
I suppose the cause is important, but in most cases you don't realize why you're in the situation you're in until it's passed. So what do you do while you're in it? I can't speak for anyone else, but I tend to fight against it. If something doesn't feel right, then I'm going to do what I can to correct the situation. The thing with that is that you can't fix something if you don't know what the problem is? Sure you might stumble upon the solution, but it's more likely that you're going to bumble around, possibly making things worse along the way. And you can't exactly go with it because it doesn't feel right. So you're stuck in this time that's all askew. Hopefully things will right themselves and you'll get back to where you're supposed to be.
What happens though when it lasts for more than just a day? Sure an off day can be chalked up to maybe one thing being not quite right, but if it goes on for longer then maybe it's not just getting up on the wrong side of the bed that's thrown you off. If you're still sticking with my theory, then maybe you're not where you're supposed to be and there is no easy fix or reset. I've had times where it felt like no matter what I was doing, it wasn't quite right and in some cases, just plain wrong. I knew this, but felt powerless to prevent it from happening. Sitting here I've been trying to think of how those situations resolved themselves. In most cases it was nothing that I did to make things better. It just sort of worked itself out. I guess there can be something said about the universe being somewhat self-correcting, although for some that may seem like a bit of a cop-out. Also there is the problem that if the universe is constantly moving and shifting certain events, what happens if the change is counter to what you want or need? Sometimes what we want is very different from what we need and it's easy to confuse the two. It could be that the choice we made to get what we wanted moved us out of position for what we needed and the feeling of being out of place isn't just a feeling, but a very real mismatch of time and space. If that's the case then it's probably very important for you figure out where things went astray, otherwise you might never get back to where you're supposed to be. That is assuming we're supposed to be anywhere and not right where we are right now.
On Evolution
The mosquito thing has gotten me thinking a bit about evolution in general. Now I believe that we evolved from something else, but there are a lot of questions that don't have easy answers. From my understanding we, along with every other species, are the most current version of what's come before. So how did we get here and where are we going?
The basic idea regarding evolution is that species adapt to their environment, either in a behavioral way or a physical one. It makes sense, until you start looking at specific examples. Take the giraffe for instance. It has a long neck so that it can reach leaves high on the tree. That's great for the giraffe, but why a long neck? Assuming the giraffe evolved from an antelope-like animal, why would they evolve into a gangly, easy to spot animal? How come it was the neck that changed? It could have just as easily been their digestive tract that changed, allowing them to eat a more varied selection of plants. Or they could have developed some other trait that allowed them to migrate away from their original location. Instead their necks became long and their legs grew to support the added structural changes. What was the determining factor for this?
That's not the only example. I could go into specifics all day, but it's more about why one animal evolved a certain way while another did something completely different. A tiger and a leopard are from the same genus of cats, however, they are drastically different looking and have varied behaviors. Ultimately they're both members of the cat family, they're just different species. One could wonder if at some point the leopard and the tiger were the same creature. If that's possible, then what caused the split so that one became an orange striped giant and the other a smaller spotted cat?
It's been theorized that evolution is caused by environmental factors. If it gets cold then a thicker coat of fur is grown. That seems like the logical process. What's dictating this logic though? Growing thicker fur is probably the simplest act that can be done, but why not move to warmer climates? Birds do it every year. Well some birds anyway. Rather than adapt to the environment, some species choose to relocate to where they're already suited. Granted a bird may have more choices when it comes to the ability to move from one place to another, still the same general concept should apply.
Essentially evolution is mutation. The mutation is an attempt to overcome something specific. If it works then the species will survive and its offspring will also have that mutation, at which point it becomes evolution. Not every mutation is beneficial though, which makes me wonder what genetic ideas were lost because in that time and place they didn't work. Maybe instead of growing thicker fur some creature increased its core temperature somehow, making it so that it wasn't affected by external cold as much, but in doing so it lost mobility, making it easier prey for predators. The mutation may have worked if the situation were slightly different. The peppered moth exists both in light and dark colors. During the industrial revolution the trees that they would rest on were blackened by soot, making it so that the darker colored moths had an advantage hiding from predators. This meant that more of the dark moths had a chance to reproduce, enough that after a few generations the majority of moths are dark now.
That process is simply natural selection at work. There is another cause of evolution that scientists have discovered that has nothing to do with adaptions to environment. Genetic drift produces completely random changes and seemingly has no direction. So it's entirely possible that the giraffe didn't evolve a long neck because of its environment, but instead it was a random mutation that just caught on because it was beneficial in that situation. I guess the question then becomes, what caused that random mutation to happen at the precise moment where it wouldn't cause more harm than good? Did it happen because a bunch of genes just happened to merge and change or was there something guiding that change? I suppose the same question can be asked about life on our planet. What caused life to suddenly occur? Was it bound to happen somewhere based on the theory of large numbers or was there some kind of force that intervened? That force could be called God or the Universe, but in the end it doesn't matter what we call it because if it exists and has the power to manipulate something like life, then we probably don't have any comprehension of what it truly is.
You have something like the shark, which has been using the same model and operating roughly the same way for hundreds of millions of years. Sure they've gotten smaller than the Megalodon for the simple reason that food supplies must have shrunk at some point making it so that a sixty foot shark wasn't going to last very long. Still a shark has been at the peak of evolution for a very long time, much longer than several other species, including humans. Obviously what they're doing works just fine and I guess the universe is going with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude when it comes to sharks. Still if there is a thing as genetic drift, which generates random mutations, regardless of need, then shouldn't the shark be due for opposable thumbs or laser eyes?
In most cases evolution is a slow process that takes generations. Sometimes hundreds of generations before the change is permanent. Still one would have to imagine that sometimes it's not a slow process. It's a quick genetic leap to the next stage in evolution. We as humans can adapt to our environment, but we tend to adapt our environment to us. Instead of growing thicker fur we build a house with a furnace. Does that mean we're not allowing ourselves to the opportunity to evolve because we keep bypassing the need to adapt? Or is our evolution that we no longer need to physically overcome something, instead we mentally create an alternative? It makes me wonder what our next evolutionary step will be if we've removed the physical need to change.
The basic idea regarding evolution is that species adapt to their environment, either in a behavioral way or a physical one. It makes sense, until you start looking at specific examples. Take the giraffe for instance. It has a long neck so that it can reach leaves high on the tree. That's great for the giraffe, but why a long neck? Assuming the giraffe evolved from an antelope-like animal, why would they evolve into a gangly, easy to spot animal? How come it was the neck that changed? It could have just as easily been their digestive tract that changed, allowing them to eat a more varied selection of plants. Or they could have developed some other trait that allowed them to migrate away from their original location. Instead their necks became long and their legs grew to support the added structural changes. What was the determining factor for this?
That's not the only example. I could go into specifics all day, but it's more about why one animal evolved a certain way while another did something completely different. A tiger and a leopard are from the same genus of cats, however, they are drastically different looking and have varied behaviors. Ultimately they're both members of the cat family, they're just different species. One could wonder if at some point the leopard and the tiger were the same creature. If that's possible, then what caused the split so that one became an orange striped giant and the other a smaller spotted cat?
It's been theorized that evolution is caused by environmental factors. If it gets cold then a thicker coat of fur is grown. That seems like the logical process. What's dictating this logic though? Growing thicker fur is probably the simplest act that can be done, but why not move to warmer climates? Birds do it every year. Well some birds anyway. Rather than adapt to the environment, some species choose to relocate to where they're already suited. Granted a bird may have more choices when it comes to the ability to move from one place to another, still the same general concept should apply.
Essentially evolution is mutation. The mutation is an attempt to overcome something specific. If it works then the species will survive and its offspring will also have that mutation, at which point it becomes evolution. Not every mutation is beneficial though, which makes me wonder what genetic ideas were lost because in that time and place they didn't work. Maybe instead of growing thicker fur some creature increased its core temperature somehow, making it so that it wasn't affected by external cold as much, but in doing so it lost mobility, making it easier prey for predators. The mutation may have worked if the situation were slightly different. The peppered moth exists both in light and dark colors. During the industrial revolution the trees that they would rest on were blackened by soot, making it so that the darker colored moths had an advantage hiding from predators. This meant that more of the dark moths had a chance to reproduce, enough that after a few generations the majority of moths are dark now.
That process is simply natural selection at work. There is another cause of evolution that scientists have discovered that has nothing to do with adaptions to environment. Genetic drift produces completely random changes and seemingly has no direction. So it's entirely possible that the giraffe didn't evolve a long neck because of its environment, but instead it was a random mutation that just caught on because it was beneficial in that situation. I guess the question then becomes, what caused that random mutation to happen at the precise moment where it wouldn't cause more harm than good? Did it happen because a bunch of genes just happened to merge and change or was there something guiding that change? I suppose the same question can be asked about life on our planet. What caused life to suddenly occur? Was it bound to happen somewhere based on the theory of large numbers or was there some kind of force that intervened? That force could be called God or the Universe, but in the end it doesn't matter what we call it because if it exists and has the power to manipulate something like life, then we probably don't have any comprehension of what it truly is.
You have something like the shark, which has been using the same model and operating roughly the same way for hundreds of millions of years. Sure they've gotten smaller than the Megalodon for the simple reason that food supplies must have shrunk at some point making it so that a sixty foot shark wasn't going to last very long. Still a shark has been at the peak of evolution for a very long time, much longer than several other species, including humans. Obviously what they're doing works just fine and I guess the universe is going with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude when it comes to sharks. Still if there is a thing as genetic drift, which generates random mutations, regardless of need, then shouldn't the shark be due for opposable thumbs or laser eyes?
In most cases evolution is a slow process that takes generations. Sometimes hundreds of generations before the change is permanent. Still one would have to imagine that sometimes it's not a slow process. It's a quick genetic leap to the next stage in evolution. We as humans can adapt to our environment, but we tend to adapt our environment to us. Instead of growing thicker fur we build a house with a furnace. Does that mean we're not allowing ourselves to the opportunity to evolve because we keep bypassing the need to adapt? Or is our evolution that we no longer need to physically overcome something, instead we mentally create an alternative? It makes me wonder what our next evolutionary step will be if we've removed the physical need to change.
Monday, July 5, 2010
This is Ponderous
How come the mosquito, who has been around for millions of years, hasn't evolved in a way that instead of injecting us with something itchy and annoying, they inject us with something delightful and pleasant? I would imagine if they did that they wouldn't get smooshed as fast as they do now.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
On Secrets & Lies
Everyone has secrets. Most people may only consider them to be simply things that they wish to keep private. Secrets, for the most part, are a good thing. Everyone needs to have a portion of themselves hidden from the world. That piece is just for them and no one else. Without secrets we would be wandering around fully exposed, almost like being naked.
I know there are couples out there who say that they tell each other everything. That they have no secrets. There are also people who say that they have nothing to hide. While that may be mostly true, everyone has something they don't or won't share with anyone. It could be some fear, a dark fantasy, an embarrassing event from the past, or something that no one else could possibly understand. Whatever it is, there can be a bit of comfort knowing that it's yours. On the flip side there can be a bit of anxiety that someone may find out about it. If someone learns our secrets there is that fear of being judged. No one really wants to be judged by someone else and yet we all do it to other people. It's in our nature. I suppose the trick is realizing that in many cases it doesn't matter what someone else thinks, it only matters what you think. So you like hardcore goat porn. You secretly cheated on a significant other at some point in a relationship. The end of the bachelor party ended up with someone being buried in the Nevada desert. OK that last one was probably pretty bad, but we tend to hide things that don't need to be hidden. Our secrets are probably trivial to other people, at least after the initial shock of hearing them. I think part of the problem with revealing a secret is that you've forever exposed a piece of yourself. It's out there and can never be hidden again. And once it's out there it's hard to say how it will change things.
Now not all secrets are harmless. Even in the examples I listed there could be some serious consequences. In a lot of situations it's unknown how someone may react to hearing secret information. That sense of unknown often leads to irrational fear. Or maybe very reasonable fear based on whatever that secret is. People have murdered in order to hide a lesser crime. At that moment it made more sense to kill someone that allow for the possibility that their secret would be exposed. Blackmail is based on the assumption that someone is so scared about something getting out that they'll continue to pay for peace of mind. The problem with blackmail is that you're never buying peace of mind, you're only renting it. It becomes a question of how far you'd go to keep something private.
It makes me wonder if keeping something secret is a form of lying. One could argue that by omitting certain pieces of information, you're in fact lying. If I don't share something does it automatically mean it's private? At what point does the unspoken transform into a secret? I guess it would only become a secret if you consciously made an effort to keep someone from finding out about it. Keeping a secret requires some bit of deception. Everyone has heard the phrase "honesty is the best policy". It's usually said by someone who is naive. I'm not saying honesty is bad, but there are so many situations where being honest doesn't help, in fact it does just the opposite. Now in several cases you should stick with the truth, if only for the simple fact that it's usually the easiest thing to remember.
The thing is that everyone lies. The size and depth of the lie varies, but we've all done it at some point and will do it again. And not all lies are bad. Some are necessary. Where would we be if we always told the truth? Although there is a difference between being honest and simply saying whatever it is you're thinking. Sometimes it's best to say nothing and when that's not an option, you go with what will cause the least amount of damage.
George said "It's not a lie if you believe it", which I always thought was a funny thing to say because it's probably the worst of all lies. You've started to delude yourself into believing something false. I would imagine everyone lies to themselves from time to time. We try to convince ourselves of something we know not to be true, but because we think it, it might in fact become true for us. Before I've talked about how perception shapes memory and in turn reality. A lie can become the truth for us if there is nothing to contradict it. In that regard the lie about the truth has become our secret that we keep from ourselves.
I know there are couples out there who say that they tell each other everything. That they have no secrets. There are also people who say that they have nothing to hide. While that may be mostly true, everyone has something they don't or won't share with anyone. It could be some fear, a dark fantasy, an embarrassing event from the past, or something that no one else could possibly understand. Whatever it is, there can be a bit of comfort knowing that it's yours. On the flip side there can be a bit of anxiety that someone may find out about it. If someone learns our secrets there is that fear of being judged. No one really wants to be judged by someone else and yet we all do it to other people. It's in our nature. I suppose the trick is realizing that in many cases it doesn't matter what someone else thinks, it only matters what you think. So you like hardcore goat porn. You secretly cheated on a significant other at some point in a relationship. The end of the bachelor party ended up with someone being buried in the Nevada desert. OK that last one was probably pretty bad, but we tend to hide things that don't need to be hidden. Our secrets are probably trivial to other people, at least after the initial shock of hearing them. I think part of the problem with revealing a secret is that you've forever exposed a piece of yourself. It's out there and can never be hidden again. And once it's out there it's hard to say how it will change things.
Now not all secrets are harmless. Even in the examples I listed there could be some serious consequences. In a lot of situations it's unknown how someone may react to hearing secret information. That sense of unknown often leads to irrational fear. Or maybe very reasonable fear based on whatever that secret is. People have murdered in order to hide a lesser crime. At that moment it made more sense to kill someone that allow for the possibility that their secret would be exposed. Blackmail is based on the assumption that someone is so scared about something getting out that they'll continue to pay for peace of mind. The problem with blackmail is that you're never buying peace of mind, you're only renting it. It becomes a question of how far you'd go to keep something private.
It makes me wonder if keeping something secret is a form of lying. One could argue that by omitting certain pieces of information, you're in fact lying. If I don't share something does it automatically mean it's private? At what point does the unspoken transform into a secret? I guess it would only become a secret if you consciously made an effort to keep someone from finding out about it. Keeping a secret requires some bit of deception. Everyone has heard the phrase "honesty is the best policy". It's usually said by someone who is naive. I'm not saying honesty is bad, but there are so many situations where being honest doesn't help, in fact it does just the opposite. Now in several cases you should stick with the truth, if only for the simple fact that it's usually the easiest thing to remember.
The thing is that everyone lies. The size and depth of the lie varies, but we've all done it at some point and will do it again. And not all lies are bad. Some are necessary. Where would we be if we always told the truth? Although there is a difference between being honest and simply saying whatever it is you're thinking. Sometimes it's best to say nothing and when that's not an option, you go with what will cause the least amount of damage.
George said "It's not a lie if you believe it", which I always thought was a funny thing to say because it's probably the worst of all lies. You've started to delude yourself into believing something false. I would imagine everyone lies to themselves from time to time. We try to convince ourselves of something we know not to be true, but because we think it, it might in fact become true for us. Before I've talked about how perception shapes memory and in turn reality. A lie can become the truth for us if there is nothing to contradict it. In that regard the lie about the truth has become our secret that we keep from ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)