This is something I wrote for an assignment last semester. For an explanation, please read the last paragraph.. I'm more interested in seeing how anyone might interpret this.
****
Each of us enters the world wearing a red veil of innocence which gradually falls off as we venture through our first years of life. Unbeknownst to us, we have arrived in a world of chaos; greed and deception create a predominance of evil.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Apparently the brain still works on Christmas
It's 11pm Christmas day (or night) and I'm finally updating this thing by writing about something that's lingered in the back of my mind for quite some time.. and becomes the dominant thought every time I visit an airport.
Whenever I visit an airport, I feel funny; strange; almost down in a way, but not because I'm depressed. Generally, I find myself thinking that the airport is a point from where each individual commences or continues their journey. A stranger knows not where each individual comes from, nor where they are heading. The individual's life story is a secret. All a spectator sees is the individual climbing aboard a plane which is going to transport them to another place, perhaps another time, and into another part of their life. Or is will be the beginning of the next part of their life.
What is it about this that makes me feel strange? In any other location where there is a crowd, the crowd is generally united in their motive for being there; the goal they want to achieve. For instance, at a concert, the theatre or a sporting event. The crowd is able to bond over what they are spectating. Contrarily, an airport basically symbolises people separating from one another. We know not to what lives other people are heading. We are not united in a goal and so we do not bond. Our only option is to guess the lives the people are heading into.
This whole idea came to mind again as we drove past houses on Christmas Eve, the vast majority of them decorated for Christmas and having colourful, sparkly trees in view of the street. I realised while driving past these houses that Christmas is one of the only times when society is divided into family groups. After all, as the saying goes, Christmas is family time (apparently). To me, this is one of the only cemented divisions that can occur in a society. Since families are set groups (generally.. not in the strictest sense) there is a great sense of belonging around Christmas, which is matched by an equally great sense of division. Similarly to the airport situation, as one looks at those decorated houses with the lit up Christmas tree, there may be several questions going through their mind including 'how will that family celebrate Christmas?' and, of course, unless that person somehow becomes an acquaintance, the question will most likely never be answered. That's not meant to sound depressing by any means; simply a thought I've been wanting to share for a while.
OK - I'm falling asleep as I write this, so I shall leave any reader/s with those thoughts to ponder.
Thanks.
Whenever I visit an airport, I feel funny; strange; almost down in a way, but not because I'm depressed. Generally, I find myself thinking that the airport is a point from where each individual commences or continues their journey. A stranger knows not where each individual comes from, nor where they are heading. The individual's life story is a secret. All a spectator sees is the individual climbing aboard a plane which is going to transport them to another place, perhaps another time, and into another part of their life. Or is will be the beginning of the next part of their life.
What is it about this that makes me feel strange? In any other location where there is a crowd, the crowd is generally united in their motive for being there; the goal they want to achieve. For instance, at a concert, the theatre or a sporting event. The crowd is able to bond over what they are spectating. Contrarily, an airport basically symbolises people separating from one another. We know not to what lives other people are heading. We are not united in a goal and so we do not bond. Our only option is to guess the lives the people are heading into.
This whole idea came to mind again as we drove past houses on Christmas Eve, the vast majority of them decorated for Christmas and having colourful, sparkly trees in view of the street. I realised while driving past these houses that Christmas is one of the only times when society is divided into family groups. After all, as the saying goes, Christmas is family time (apparently). To me, this is one of the only cemented divisions that can occur in a society. Since families are set groups (generally.. not in the strictest sense) there is a great sense of belonging around Christmas, which is matched by an equally great sense of division. Similarly to the airport situation, as one looks at those decorated houses with the lit up Christmas tree, there may be several questions going through their mind including 'how will that family celebrate Christmas?' and, of course, unless that person somehow becomes an acquaintance, the question will most likely never be answered. That's not meant to sound depressing by any means; simply a thought I've been wanting to share for a while.
OK - I'm falling asleep as I write this, so I shall leave any reader/s with those thoughts to ponder.
Thanks.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Quotes and stuff
I read a quote today that got me thinking. Unfortunately, I couldn't fully remember the wording by the time I got to this stage, so I greeted Google with puppy dog eyes, a winning grin and requested the nice search-thingy to locate certain key words. The page I found contained the following quotes:
"What we are, that only can we see" - Ralph Emerson
"All criticism is a form of autobiography" - Oscar Wilde
and part of another quote:
"Life is but a mirror, in whose reflection I see,
Not a myriad of others, but a little bit of me." - Robert Brehm
"The story always represents the storyteller." - Robert Brehm
(as you can see, I love quotes :))
This paragraph also caught my attention:
Self-perception theory and other perception theory, briefly stated, are theories which refer to a means of increasing our self-awareness. The concept "self-awareness" refers to our ability to "observe ourselves", or to introspect, i.e., to notice how our behavior, feelings and reactions are caused by our thinking. Self-perception theory postulates that self-observation is important in increasing our self awareness. Other perception theory, or social comparison theory, maintains that making comparisons with others is important in increasing our self-awareness. (http://www.green-river.com/Interpersonal_Relations/class2.htm)
OK, aside from the minor brain-squishing feeling probably now being experienced, I wanted to acknowledge something important (well, I feel it's important) in this; the power of thinking, and of our thoughts. I think the best example of mind power is when someone can literally 'think' themselves into having symptoms of an illness. This happened on an episode of House once (if I recall correctly); took place in a plane, a person on the flight had a deadly virus, and soon it seemed to spread to every other person in the flight. None were legitimately ill; once they were told they weren't sick, the symptoms disappeared. Another example is Pseudocyesis, the imagined pregnancy syndrome. The mother will experience pregnancy symptoms, such as morning sickness and weight gain or breast tenderness. It is thought that the condition develops from intense emotional conflict (desire to become pregnant or fear of it), or a strong desire for a wish to be fulfilled (http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pseudocyesis.html). Actually, I discussed a while ago how sometimes, if you wish for something so badly, you can actually imagine it happening in a real sense. I won't go further with this, but it just shows how strong the mind is.
That might be why I suffer from stress and anxiety a lot, since I have such an active mind (unfortunately not always productively active). It seems in moments of stress/anxiety/depression or whatever, the best thing to do is distract your mind, or exercise it (literally, get the blood and other goodness pumping up there, feels good). I tend to look at quotes/affirmations, the inspirational/motivational kind. Or quotes like I posted above, since they get me thinking.
It is pretty much true that we are each our own worst critic. It's been said millions of times, and it will be continue to be said. I said in the previous post how everything is defined by how we each perceive things (one idea, anyway). It is strange to think that we are defining ourselves based on a perception that goes far beyond surface detail; no one else can know the depths of ourselves as we do, yet we tend to concentrate on what we see as our worst aspects, whereas other people see our good.
"An incomplete camera cannot take photographs, and an incomplete eye cannot see" - West Australian letters to the editor Wednesday 30/9/2009 'Please explain: A logical answer'
The person who sees us is the photographer; we are the subject.. we don't necessarily have a particular blind spot towards ourselves, but it seems many people are less willing to see some of their good aspects (eg. some people find it hard to accept compliments). Simply, given everyone perceives things differently, the way we see ourselves is probably not exactly matched by anyone else. Given that anyone prefers to be with people they like or see goodness in, logically each person is allocated the position of being their own worst critic.
Righto, this is getting slightly ridiculous, so, signing out.
"What we are, that only can we see" - Ralph Emerson
"All criticism is a form of autobiography" - Oscar Wilde
and part of another quote:
"Life is but a mirror, in whose reflection I see,
Not a myriad of others, but a little bit of me." - Robert Brehm
"The story always represents the storyteller." - Robert Brehm
(as you can see, I love quotes :))
This paragraph also caught my attention:
Self-perception theory and other perception theory, briefly stated, are theories which refer to a means of increasing our self-awareness. The concept "self-awareness" refers to our ability to "observe ourselves", or to introspect, i.e., to notice how our behavior, feelings and reactions are caused by our thinking. Self-perception theory postulates that self-observation is important in increasing our self awareness. Other perception theory, or social comparison theory, maintains that making comparisons with others is important in increasing our self-awareness. (http://www.green-river.com/Interpersonal_Relations/class2.htm)
OK, aside from the minor brain-squishing feeling probably now being experienced, I wanted to acknowledge something important (well, I feel it's important) in this; the power of thinking, and of our thoughts. I think the best example of mind power is when someone can literally 'think' themselves into having symptoms of an illness. This happened on an episode of House once (if I recall correctly); took place in a plane, a person on the flight had a deadly virus, and soon it seemed to spread to every other person in the flight. None were legitimately ill; once they were told they weren't sick, the symptoms disappeared. Another example is Pseudocyesis, the imagined pregnancy syndrome. The mother will experience pregnancy symptoms, such as morning sickness and weight gain or breast tenderness. It is thought that the condition develops from intense emotional conflict (desire to become pregnant or fear of it), or a strong desire for a wish to be fulfilled (http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pseudocyesis.html). Actually, I discussed a while ago how sometimes, if you wish for something so badly, you can actually imagine it happening in a real sense. I won't go further with this, but it just shows how strong the mind is.
That might be why I suffer from stress and anxiety a lot, since I have such an active mind (unfortunately not always productively active). It seems in moments of stress/anxiety/depression or whatever, the best thing to do is distract your mind, or exercise it (literally, get the blood and other goodness pumping up there, feels good). I tend to look at quotes/affirmations, the inspirational/motivational kind. Or quotes like I posted above, since they get me thinking.
It is pretty much true that we are each our own worst critic. It's been said millions of times, and it will be continue to be said. I said in the previous post how everything is defined by how we each perceive things (one idea, anyway). It is strange to think that we are defining ourselves based on a perception that goes far beyond surface detail; no one else can know the depths of ourselves as we do, yet we tend to concentrate on what we see as our worst aspects, whereas other people see our good.
"An incomplete camera cannot take photographs, and an incomplete eye cannot see" - West Australian letters to the editor Wednesday 30/9/2009 'Please explain: A logical answer'
The person who sees us is the photographer; we are the subject.. we don't necessarily have a particular blind spot towards ourselves, but it seems many people are less willing to see some of their good aspects (eg. some people find it hard to accept compliments). Simply, given everyone perceives things differently, the way we see ourselves is probably not exactly matched by anyone else. Given that anyone prefers to be with people they like or see goodness in, logically each person is allocated the position of being their own worst critic.
Righto, this is getting slightly ridiculous, so, signing out.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Bubbles and pivotal points
What I really love about traveling is the journey; the destination is good, but I prefer the journey (as cliche as that may sound, and as odd as I may sound). The reason being is, sailing past what seems to be the unending wild landscape (by which I mean undisturbed trees, scrub, long grass, or perhaps the wheat-lookalike stuff, and red bull dust) enables (perhaps even unleashes) my mind to wander in any possible direction. I find myself getting lost in the deepest thoughts, being inspired and sure, day dreaming (or night dreaming, as may be the case, but it isn't usually) :) It is incredibly relaxing (apart from that particular moment when I find I have actually fallen asleep, when I am awoken with a jolt after dreaming that the car has crashed). It is made even more so when I'm listening to the iPod (yup, unfortunately modern technology has to play a part here - music inspires me and evokes a lot of other emotions).
There is a point to all that. Specifically, my thoughts from the last car trip. I started contemplating the 'bubble' concept; wondering whether we each exist in our own metaphorical bubbles. To start off; 'things' don't just bounce off us, so what are these bubbles protecting us from? In the movie, Bubble Boy, he was protected from germs, since his immune system didn't work properly. In reality though, it seems the 'bubble' is more like our facade; we are able to hide stuff within. Unfortunately, like all bubbles, there's a limited capacity ... there's only so much we can hold. That's why facades aren't exactly efficient; they're temporarily effective in many ways, but in the end that effect is counteracted by overcapacity (at 1.37am, that sounds weird, but I hope it make sense). Fortunately, some of this stuff can be 'eliminated' by processing, resolution etc.
I'm not entirely sure how this is related to the 'bubble' concept, but it also got me thinking about reactions. In a conversation I had a while ago, it was discussed how the world is what it is, and the elements of the planet are what they are, but it and they are all defined by how we perceive them. In other words, nothing is technically defined, since each thing is defined only by perception, and each individual perceives things differently, based on their own knowledge and experiences (even if we are heavily influenced by scientific or other theories). Now, this might not be a very popular opinion (or it could be; who knows), but it is one I find interesting (funny that).
Extending this is the idea of predicting reaction. Let's say that each individual is a pivotal point on the planet; we each perceive an object, and the resulting definition is reflected back into the world, activating any response we have to the object (verbal or physical)... if that makes sense.. there is another branch though, from each of us, if we are to follow the pivotal point idea. It is difficult to predict one's reaction to an object or incident, given that each person is broken down into (ironically) more complex emotions. I.e, we are each one person; we look at the world around us, at thousands of objects, we process what we see, and our ideas and consequent reactions are derived from numerous locations in our minds (I'm loving the squishy feeling my brain is currently experiencing.......).
There was a bit more, but I think I have caused enough damage for one night ;)
.......I think the scariest thing is that was a result of a one hour car trip. I hate to think what might happen on a drive to the other side of the country :P
Sunday, September 27, 2009
'Back To the Future' is potentially good advice..
Wow, I haven't posted in quite a while. I've had thoughts, many of them deep and somewhat complicated, but I've found myself either not quite knowing how to put any of it into words, or feeling like those words don't really sound right. Or, option three, I've started writing and found myself questioning the whole thing. Not really the best frame of mind to be in whilst attempting to present a case :)
This is something I was contemplating a while back; being able to go back into your past, whether to relive certain moments or simply review what you learned from them, to prevent the same mistakes from being remade. Actually, to be honest I can't remember what I was thinking exactly, but this feels like it's along the right line.
The silly thing is, nearly (and possibly every) event taking place in the world is one that has been repeated at some point in the past, be that yesterday, last week, last year or a century ago. Each event, then and now, has a process - a cause and an effect. We know what causes dispute, we know what causes war. We know the effects of each, and they aren't pleasant, not even really for the people that come out closer to the top (I won't say 'winner' or 'at the top' because there is always some kind of sacrifice even in being the stronger party). Yet, even with this knowledge, it all continues to happen.
The vicious cycle we're caught in seems to indicate that human nature, our historically enforced habits, really do drive us. In trying to make peace we end up sparking war.
So many factors come into play - cultural and social backgrounds and situations, dominant religious beliefs, political systems - that are all human designed and constructed concepts, policies and beliefs, that are basically the 'guarantee' that there will be disagreement, there will be dispute, and there will be battle. Yet it's impossible to unravel all this because it's such a complicated, deep, fixed group of systems. I wouldn't say 'fixed' as in unalterable, only as in things that are embedded so deeply in some societies that they can't be eliminated (without some sort of possibly presently uninvented tool/s).
How about all this on a personal level - if we could revisit past dreams or real experiences to prevent repeated situations? Would we? Or are some repeated actions just hidden desires that can't be suppressed? Not that we want to find ourselves in uncomfortable situations, but perhaps there's an element of even these situations that we seek to revisit (in the present or future). I can't quite think what at the moment, but there could be something :P
When it comes down to it, how many people act the way they do out of expectation or fashion? (Similar things, but what I'm trying to say is, acting on the one hand, out of pressure, or on the other hand, enjoying being a part of the crowd, being accepted [another type of pressure?]). A topic covered recently at uni was personal autonomy, and the question of whether it really exists or not. Are we really autonomous individuals given our ideas, perspectives, beliefs and values are based on a combination of family, social, cultural, political, economic, education (etc etc) factors? Or are we simply led to believe we are by clever advertising strategies? How many people would really choose to suffer through war? I fully respect the many soldiers who have battled for the sake of patriotism and as a result of their character. Just want to clarify that. My question is, are these ideas of pride (and everything associated) embedded in us through school, for the very reason of participating in war (and other things).. i.e. the point of education is for the older generations to ensure they have fully trained groups to carry their rituals into the future? I definitely think learning is a great thing; knowledge is wonderful (the way it is and isn't used is sometimes questionable), but this question is now in my mind from a lecture I heard last week.
OK, this is getting pretty long, (had to make up for some missed weeks!) but I think it's something to think about.. or a few things. Or an insomnia cure ;) One thing I hope (I don't necessarily believe, but one can hope) is that we will actually learn from the economic crisis and different politically-rooted problems around the world, and somehow reshape the planet into a friendlier, cleaner, more efficiently operated grand piece of rock, flora, fauna, cement and the homo-sapiens we call ourselves.
This is something I was contemplating a while back; being able to go back into your past, whether to relive certain moments or simply review what you learned from them, to prevent the same mistakes from being remade. Actually, to be honest I can't remember what I was thinking exactly, but this feels like it's along the right line.
The silly thing is, nearly (and possibly every) event taking place in the world is one that has been repeated at some point in the past, be that yesterday, last week, last year or a century ago. Each event, then and now, has a process - a cause and an effect. We know what causes dispute, we know what causes war. We know the effects of each, and they aren't pleasant, not even really for the people that come out closer to the top (I won't say 'winner' or 'at the top' because there is always some kind of sacrifice even in being the stronger party). Yet, even with this knowledge, it all continues to happen.
The vicious cycle we're caught in seems to indicate that human nature, our historically enforced habits, really do drive us. In trying to make peace we end up sparking war.
So many factors come into play - cultural and social backgrounds and situations, dominant religious beliefs, political systems - that are all human designed and constructed concepts, policies and beliefs, that are basically the 'guarantee' that there will be disagreement, there will be dispute, and there will be battle. Yet it's impossible to unravel all this because it's such a complicated, deep, fixed group of systems. I wouldn't say 'fixed' as in unalterable, only as in things that are embedded so deeply in some societies that they can't be eliminated (without some sort of possibly presently uninvented tool/s).
How about all this on a personal level - if we could revisit past dreams or real experiences to prevent repeated situations? Would we? Or are some repeated actions just hidden desires that can't be suppressed? Not that we want to find ourselves in uncomfortable situations, but perhaps there's an element of even these situations that we seek to revisit (in the present or future). I can't quite think what at the moment, but there could be something :P
When it comes down to it, how many people act the way they do out of expectation or fashion? (Similar things, but what I'm trying to say is, acting on the one hand, out of pressure, or on the other hand, enjoying being a part of the crowd, being accepted [another type of pressure?]). A topic covered recently at uni was personal autonomy, and the question of whether it really exists or not. Are we really autonomous individuals given our ideas, perspectives, beliefs and values are based on a combination of family, social, cultural, political, economic, education (etc etc) factors? Or are we simply led to believe we are by clever advertising strategies? How many people would really choose to suffer through war? I fully respect the many soldiers who have battled for the sake of patriotism and as a result of their character. Just want to clarify that. My question is, are these ideas of pride (and everything associated) embedded in us through school, for the very reason of participating in war (and other things).. i.e. the point of education is for the older generations to ensure they have fully trained groups to carry their rituals into the future? I definitely think learning is a great thing; knowledge is wonderful (the way it is and isn't used is sometimes questionable), but this question is now in my mind from a lecture I heard last week.
OK, this is getting pretty long, (had to make up for some missed weeks!) but I think it's something to think about.. or a few things. Or an insomnia cure ;) One thing I hope (I don't necessarily believe, but one can hope) is that we will actually learn from the economic crisis and different politically-rooted problems around the world, and somehow reshape the planet into a friendlier, cleaner, more efficiently operated grand piece of rock, flora, fauna, cement and the homo-sapiens we call ourselves.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Imaginings and Reality
An interesting thought just occurred to me. Actually, it's silly, but it does show how strong the mind can be. Well, the mind is, period.
Have you ever imagined something so intensely that you convinced yourself that it might actually be true? I remember as a little kid, one day I was wishing so hard that I was at the North Pole with Santa, that for a while I was able to create such a strong feeling of the idea being a reality. It was an extremely odd sensation; one that has caused the memory to stay with me quite vividly.
Other times, I have been thinking about something and either questioning why it couldn't be true, or simply believing it is without question, and a moment later I have found myself in a state of confusion wondering why, in fact, whatever the thing was, wasn't as I had imagined it to be. Sounds ridiculous, but it's a strange feeling.
Perhaps many of our perspectives in real life have simply been imagined into being by us as individuals. Perhaps what we believe of the world is untrue, but we are surviving regardless because we believe these things and engage ourselves in life accordingly.. which could explain some of the bad situations humanity finds itself in.. could we be the cause of our own eventual extinction?
This sort of relates to my last post about dreams. Sometimes dreams can be so vivid that we awaken believing them to be true. It can be hugely depressing or relieving to realise the situation in which ever dream is untrue. Just a figment of our imagination. Or whatever it is that produces dreams, because I find it hard to believe that if people were in control of their own dreams they would subject themselves to the horrors of nightmares. Then again, there are some strange people out there. Or, investigating that possibility, people could easily conjure ideas for horrific stories - so nightmares may have a purpose after all.
Have you ever imagined something so intensely that you convinced yourself that it might actually be true? I remember as a little kid, one day I was wishing so hard that I was at the North Pole with Santa, that for a while I was able to create such a strong feeling of the idea being a reality. It was an extremely odd sensation; one that has caused the memory to stay with me quite vividly.
Other times, I have been thinking about something and either questioning why it couldn't be true, or simply believing it is without question, and a moment later I have found myself in a state of confusion wondering why, in fact, whatever the thing was, wasn't as I had imagined it to be. Sounds ridiculous, but it's a strange feeling.
Perhaps many of our perspectives in real life have simply been imagined into being by us as individuals. Perhaps what we believe of the world is untrue, but we are surviving regardless because we believe these things and engage ourselves in life accordingly.. which could explain some of the bad situations humanity finds itself in.. could we be the cause of our own eventual extinction?
This sort of relates to my last post about dreams. Sometimes dreams can be so vivid that we awaken believing them to be true. It can be hugely depressing or relieving to realise the situation in which ever dream is untrue. Just a figment of our imagination. Or whatever it is that produces dreams, because I find it hard to believe that if people were in control of their own dreams they would subject themselves to the horrors of nightmares. Then again, there are some strange people out there. Or, investigating that possibility, people could easily conjure ideas for horrific stories - so nightmares may have a purpose after all.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Dreams
It's been quite a while since I updated this (had been six days a few days ago when someone casually reminded me about it :P). I hadn't forgotten about it; uni assignments have been bogging me down slightly. However, they've been submitted and I have study week this week, so here I am!
Some interesting things happened this week. Unfortunately I didn't write some of them down, so most likely I've forgotten some important things (ALWAYS write stuff down - you never know when you'll be inspired or just have a thought you want to remember). One recurring subject with a few people lately has been dreams. As in, those animated images you see in the depths of nightly unconsciousness. I say nightly because, for some strange reason, I never seem to dream the same if I sleep during the day. Wonder why that is.
So, where do dreams come from? Is there actually an answer, or just a heap of supported but unproven theories? (Which would make sense because, technically, nothing can actually be proven. Apart from physically visible and unambiguous details like hair colour. But even in this case, one could take a philosophical approach and question whether colour even exists or not..).
I tend to dream when I am stressed or worried. In other words, when I have a lot of things on my mind. Also, if I am intently watching something just before I turn out my light, it is likely I will dream something related. Not always a good thing. The other interesting thing about my dreams is that often, I am able to wake up slightly and go back to the same dream, continuing from where I left. Not cool when it comes to nightmares. Thankfully I can also wake myself up in that situation.
Is there a connection between dreams and how we act simultaneously in reality? If we have violent or active dreams, much of the time we wake up to a messy pile of bed sheets and blankets; sometimes I find myself with my head at the other end of the bed to when I fell asleep, which causes a nasty case of disorientation.
How does sleep walking and talking connect to it all? If you're dreaming of, say, being in a war zone, are you walking through that war zone? Because you'd think in that case you'd be sneaking about and possibly attacking people, which I haven't heard of with a lot of sleep walkers (although I am sure it happens more than I know).
I recall hearing a while ago that people dream every night, or every time they sleep, but don't necessarily remember the whole dream or any part of it. How has it been 'proven' that this happens? Does it mean there is some kind of chemical or nervous reaction that causes it all?
Does drinking sugary drinks or food before bed affect dreams at all, given the increased activity that sugar stimulates?
A few random thought offerings until I remember all the other deep stuff I have been thinking about :)
Some interesting things happened this week. Unfortunately I didn't write some of them down, so most likely I've forgotten some important things (ALWAYS write stuff down - you never know when you'll be inspired or just have a thought you want to remember). One recurring subject with a few people lately has been dreams. As in, those animated images you see in the depths of nightly unconsciousness. I say nightly because, for some strange reason, I never seem to dream the same if I sleep during the day. Wonder why that is.
So, where do dreams come from? Is there actually an answer, or just a heap of supported but unproven theories? (Which would make sense because, technically, nothing can actually be proven. Apart from physically visible and unambiguous details like hair colour. But even in this case, one could take a philosophical approach and question whether colour even exists or not..).
I tend to dream when I am stressed or worried. In other words, when I have a lot of things on my mind. Also, if I am intently watching something just before I turn out my light, it is likely I will dream something related. Not always a good thing. The other interesting thing about my dreams is that often, I am able to wake up slightly and go back to the same dream, continuing from where I left. Not cool when it comes to nightmares. Thankfully I can also wake myself up in that situation.
Is there a connection between dreams and how we act simultaneously in reality? If we have violent or active dreams, much of the time we wake up to a messy pile of bed sheets and blankets; sometimes I find myself with my head at the other end of the bed to when I fell asleep, which causes a nasty case of disorientation.
How does sleep walking and talking connect to it all? If you're dreaming of, say, being in a war zone, are you walking through that war zone? Because you'd think in that case you'd be sneaking about and possibly attacking people, which I haven't heard of with a lot of sleep walkers (although I am sure it happens more than I know).
I recall hearing a while ago that people dream every night, or every time they sleep, but don't necessarily remember the whole dream or any part of it. How has it been 'proven' that this happens? Does it mean there is some kind of chemical or nervous reaction that causes it all?
Does drinking sugary drinks or food before bed affect dreams at all, given the increased activity that sugar stimulates?
A few random thought offerings until I remember all the other deep stuff I have been thinking about :)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Words and Stereotypes - A Closer Look
I had an interesting discussion today based on one of my earlier posts; that of appearance, perception and stereotypes. The discussion focused more on the verbal relationships between people, and how society may interact differently if people took more time to know and understand one another, or at least placed less emphasis on stereotypes.
Two scenarios come to my mind (one of which was discussed by a friend):
1) If we were all open and honest with each other, and hid none of our true selves, would we be without enemies, since enemies are often a result of distorted perception or misinterpretations?
2) If, similarly, we were all honest in regards to how we view one another, would this create more tension or simply provide people with an opportunity to view themselves in a different way?
When I think of complete honesty, I am reminded of movies such as 'Liar, Liar' and 'What Women Want', two very different movies based on a premise of uncontrollable thoughts or words, either received by the main character or provided by the main character (terrible descriptions, apologies, it's 12.21am but I wanted to get this written before I forgot). In 'Liar, Liar', Jim Carrey's character, through his son's birthday wish, is forced into vocalizing totally honest thoughts, however incriminating. In 'What Women Want', Mel Gibson's character, through electrocution (honestly, how many people would try to electrocute themselves after watching that movie purely for the chance to be able to read minds? I'm sure there would've been some people who considered it to be possible), is able to hear the thoughts of every woman he comes in the vicinity of. While the messages in these movies of honesty and understanding individuals are typical and predictable, they are also relevant, accurate and significant.
If people were to really listen to others, observe them and try to understand them, and not simply judge or stereotype them on a basis of what they say (because, honestly, how many people say things they don't necessarily fully agree with, just to fit in with a new group or similar?) or how they dress, I'd say the level of tension and depression in the world would be substantially lower.
Who knows....
Two scenarios come to my mind (one of which was discussed by a friend):
1) If we were all open and honest with each other, and hid none of our true selves, would we be without enemies, since enemies are often a result of distorted perception or misinterpretations?
2) If, similarly, we were all honest in regards to how we view one another, would this create more tension or simply provide people with an opportunity to view themselves in a different way?
When I think of complete honesty, I am reminded of movies such as 'Liar, Liar' and 'What Women Want', two very different movies based on a premise of uncontrollable thoughts or words, either received by the main character or provided by the main character (terrible descriptions, apologies, it's 12.21am but I wanted to get this written before I forgot). In 'Liar, Liar', Jim Carrey's character, through his son's birthday wish, is forced into vocalizing totally honest thoughts, however incriminating. In 'What Women Want', Mel Gibson's character, through electrocution (honestly, how many people would try to electrocute themselves after watching that movie purely for the chance to be able to read minds? I'm sure there would've been some people who considered it to be possible), is able to hear the thoughts of every woman he comes in the vicinity of. While the messages in these movies of honesty and understanding individuals are typical and predictable, they are also relevant, accurate and significant.
If people were to really listen to others, observe them and try to understand them, and not simply judge or stereotype them on a basis of what they say (because, honestly, how many people say things they don't necessarily fully agree with, just to fit in with a new group or similar?) or how they dress, I'd say the level of tension and depression in the world would be substantially lower.
Who knows....
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Random Events.. Or Not So
Talk about a heap of random, weirdly related events. That's what I'm going to do; talk about them. Even if they aren't interesting. I enjoy rambling.
My random events include watching Pride and Prejudice (any version) for the umpteenth time, trying to work out the automatic checkout system, walking to the shops (in the other order.. although i suppose walking back from the shops could be counted) and wearing a surgical mask due to my sister's suspected swine flu. Although wearing the mask is pretty cool; it feels dangerous in a weird way (risk of catching disease? No idea. Pretty bad thought, but one has to amuse themself in such situations).
On to the connections. This might sound slightly gibberish because I have a lot of thoughts, and I'm not entirely sure if they're going to make sense just put on the table like this.
Firstly, 'Pride and Prejudice' has, as movies should do, affected my perception of every day life, especially as I compare the time period as set in the movie, to that of the present. The automatic checkout system is, I think, the perfect example of the practically opposite ways in which we live now. It used to be markets, people selling and sharing fresh produce. Now, there is no light, friendly chatter as one makes their way through the automatic checkout. It is just one more way in which technology is replacing people. Literally. However, aside from perhaps, improved speed and efficiency of these systems, I perceive the issue to be with employment; or rather, the recession and consequent rise in unemployment.
Alas, I didn't use the automatic checkout. I opted for the traditional bartering option (i.e. give cash to the person). This may have been partially because I think the machines only accept card, which I didn't have, but the human contact is also nice. It's an opportunity to help break the monotony of the checkout assistant's day by asking after their health, making an amusing comment about the day in general, or simply making a fool of oneself (admittedly, the latter happens most to me). Indeed, I did make her smile, even if it was only due to the sweet crunch of monetary notes in her hand.
Soon after this, I began the walk home. It is about a twenty minute walk, which was quite pleasant (and hey, good for the health, which always feels like a bonus). Again, the walking took my thoughts back to the viewings of 'Pride and Prejudice'. I considered the amount of walking people do now compared to back then. OK, so horses and carriages were used a fair amount, but online ordering didn't exist; heck, phone ordering didn't exist! It's clear that as much as technology has been an assistance to our, generally, severely imbalanced use of time, in many ways it has been more than equally detrimental to our health and, possibly, mental and psychological development. Although, that could be debated strongly by arguments that are totally valid. With technology and breakthroughs of many sorts that have been achieved over time, it seems that a decrease in exercise may have been met by an increase in brain stimulation. Unfortunately, as the positive branch thickens, it shortens again after a while. Brain activity can only go so far without adequate physical activity.
How does all this connect to the fashionable surgical mask? Basically, the mask, and nursing the sister, reminds me of that fateful scene in 'Pride and Prejudice' where Jane is left to the mercy of the elements and consequently finds herself bedridden at the Netherfield residence. For some reason it is refreshing to see traditional medicine at work; perhaps the absence of countless drugs and tubes creates a more relaxing atmosphere. Not to mention the classic beauty of the room. I really wouldn't complain about having to live in that little shack. But, again, an illustration of the insanity (regardless of their many beneficial properties) of today's remedies. There needs to be a maintained balance between taking care of ourselves, and letting medication do the work.
Six paragraphs of rambling later, and I think I have explained the connections of the random events.
My random events include watching Pride and Prejudice (any version) for the umpteenth time, trying to work out the automatic checkout system, walking to the shops (in the other order.. although i suppose walking back from the shops could be counted) and wearing a surgical mask due to my sister's suspected swine flu. Although wearing the mask is pretty cool; it feels dangerous in a weird way (risk of catching disease? No idea. Pretty bad thought, but one has to amuse themself in such situations).
On to the connections. This might sound slightly gibberish because I have a lot of thoughts, and I'm not entirely sure if they're going to make sense just put on the table like this.
Firstly, 'Pride and Prejudice' has, as movies should do, affected my perception of every day life, especially as I compare the time period as set in the movie, to that of the present. The automatic checkout system is, I think, the perfect example of the practically opposite ways in which we live now. It used to be markets, people selling and sharing fresh produce. Now, there is no light, friendly chatter as one makes their way through the automatic checkout. It is just one more way in which technology is replacing people. Literally. However, aside from perhaps, improved speed and efficiency of these systems, I perceive the issue to be with employment; or rather, the recession and consequent rise in unemployment.
Alas, I didn't use the automatic checkout. I opted for the traditional bartering option (i.e. give cash to the person). This may have been partially because I think the machines only accept card, which I didn't have, but the human contact is also nice. It's an opportunity to help break the monotony of the checkout assistant's day by asking after their health, making an amusing comment about the day in general, or simply making a fool of oneself (admittedly, the latter happens most to me). Indeed, I did make her smile, even if it was only due to the sweet crunch of monetary notes in her hand.
Soon after this, I began the walk home. It is about a twenty minute walk, which was quite pleasant (and hey, good for the health, which always feels like a bonus). Again, the walking took my thoughts back to the viewings of 'Pride and Prejudice'. I considered the amount of walking people do now compared to back then. OK, so horses and carriages were used a fair amount, but online ordering didn't exist; heck, phone ordering didn't exist! It's clear that as much as technology has been an assistance to our, generally, severely imbalanced use of time, in many ways it has been more than equally detrimental to our health and, possibly, mental and psychological development. Although, that could be debated strongly by arguments that are totally valid. With technology and breakthroughs of many sorts that have been achieved over time, it seems that a decrease in exercise may have been met by an increase in brain stimulation. Unfortunately, as the positive branch thickens, it shortens again after a while. Brain activity can only go so far without adequate physical activity.
How does all this connect to the fashionable surgical mask? Basically, the mask, and nursing the sister, reminds me of that fateful scene in 'Pride and Prejudice' where Jane is left to the mercy of the elements and consequently finds herself bedridden at the Netherfield residence. For some reason it is refreshing to see traditional medicine at work; perhaps the absence of countless drugs and tubes creates a more relaxing atmosphere. Not to mention the classic beauty of the room. I really wouldn't complain about having to live in that little shack. But, again, an illustration of the insanity (regardless of their many beneficial properties) of today's remedies. There needs to be a maintained balance between taking care of ourselves, and letting medication do the work.
Six paragraphs of rambling later, and I think I have explained the connections of the random events.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas
I read 'The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas' by John Boyne a few months ago, but have had it sitting on my desk in plain view since then. A few hundred times I have caught my gaze on it, so I figured I might actually do something with the random thoughts in my mind.
The image on the front cover of the book entails a young Jewish boy (Shmuel) and a similarly aged non-Jew boy (Bruno), sitting cross-legged and facing each other, separated by a tall, iron, barbed wire fence. Although the sky is consistent over the whole image, there is a clear difference in the landscapes. Shmuel is sitting on what appears to be very dry, red dirt, with gray buildings in the background. Bruno is sitting on short, luscious looking grass.
The sub-title, or statement at the bottom of the cover, says "A story of innocence in a world of ignorance". The non-Jewish boy befriends the Jew because he knows nothing of the Jews' supposed unnaturalness, or the fact that they are meant to be enemies. All he sees is a young boy he can talk to and have fun with.
What grabs my attention with this statement is the similarity but vast difference between the meanings. Both reflect a lack of knowledge held by the people. "Innocence" acknowledges that people can't help what they haven't yet learned. In this book, and in general, the innocence that children possess is a really beautiful thing. They haven't yet learned the workings and injustices of the world. "Ignorance", on the other hand, could almost be frowned upon. People have the ability, if not always the opportunity, to attempt to obtain information. If this occurred, it would be much more difficult to conceal happenings anywhere, and (I'd hope it would be safe to assume) perpetrators of such wrongdoings would be under substantially greater pressure to stop or change.
Another thing which occurred to me (and I've most probably mentioned in an earlier blog, seeing how often I mention it in reality) is the presumed unlikelihood of one person making a difference. From what I gather, it took one man to initiate the events leading to, and continuing throughout, WW2. OK, so it's not the difference anyone (should've) wanted, but his actions did make a very big difference. I wonder how different things would've been, and would be today, if he hadn't been told he would never make a good artist. This is a very good example of why people should be encouraged in their talents or interests.
I really enjoyed the film interpretation of this novel. There was something I found quite symbolic: Bruno pretended to fly a plane, running through a luscious green forest area. He had an innocent interest in a machine he played with for fun. Any plane flying overhead would immediately place fear in all people below. Fear of attack. It's a sad comparison, but pretty meaningful (at least, to me).
I highly recommend this book and the film to anyone.
The image on the front cover of the book entails a young Jewish boy (Shmuel) and a similarly aged non-Jew boy (Bruno), sitting cross-legged and facing each other, separated by a tall, iron, barbed wire fence. Although the sky is consistent over the whole image, there is a clear difference in the landscapes. Shmuel is sitting on what appears to be very dry, red dirt, with gray buildings in the background. Bruno is sitting on short, luscious looking grass.
The sub-title, or statement at the bottom of the cover, says "A story of innocence in a world of ignorance". The non-Jewish boy befriends the Jew because he knows nothing of the Jews' supposed unnaturalness, or the fact that they are meant to be enemies. All he sees is a young boy he can talk to and have fun with.
What grabs my attention with this statement is the similarity but vast difference between the meanings. Both reflect a lack of knowledge held by the people. "Innocence" acknowledges that people can't help what they haven't yet learned. In this book, and in general, the innocence that children possess is a really beautiful thing. They haven't yet learned the workings and injustices of the world. "Ignorance", on the other hand, could almost be frowned upon. People have the ability, if not always the opportunity, to attempt to obtain information. If this occurred, it would be much more difficult to conceal happenings anywhere, and (I'd hope it would be safe to assume) perpetrators of such wrongdoings would be under substantially greater pressure to stop or change.
Another thing which occurred to me (and I've most probably mentioned in an earlier blog, seeing how often I mention it in reality) is the presumed unlikelihood of one person making a difference. From what I gather, it took one man to initiate the events leading to, and continuing throughout, WW2. OK, so it's not the difference anyone (should've) wanted, but his actions did make a very big difference. I wonder how different things would've been, and would be today, if he hadn't been told he would never make a good artist. This is a very good example of why people should be encouraged in their talents or interests.
I really enjoyed the film interpretation of this novel. There was something I found quite symbolic: Bruno pretended to fly a plane, running through a luscious green forest area. He had an innocent interest in a machine he played with for fun. Any plane flying overhead would immediately place fear in all people below. Fear of attack. It's a sad comparison, but pretty meaningful (at least, to me).
I highly recommend this book and the film to anyone.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A Slight Rant (Perhaps A Warning)
Appearance is a strange thing. In general, we condemn people for judging others based on their appearance; yet, a person's appearance is how we identity and partially analyse them. It can't be denied that our appearance plays a significant role in representing us.
However, appearance can also be deceptive. A person's clothing or body type may result in them being 'labeled' as someone they are not. This appearance could be constructed intentionally for this very purpose, or it could be a seemingly unfair result of genetics and/or environment. People could appear a certain way to deceive others, or in an attempt to conceal their true selves from fear of unfortunate bullying or other pressures.
Then again, cultural and religious differences between people may result in misunderstandings of certain appearances, which can lead to offense and dispute. Personally, I find it frustrating and suppressive that trends formed in fashion and appearance (eg. size 0, different shapes, different clothing seasons) seem to have an invisible force on people to comply. Individuals who maintain and express their individuality, even if this means going against the norm, are often considered weird and consequently marginalised. This might be in extreme cases, but it still occurs too often.
OK so this is a slight rant; I've had a frustrating day, and reading a couple of articles on childhood obesity trends increasing hasn't helped. Also, seeing the advertisement on TV for Herron vegetables, or whatever it is, bugs me. They're encouraging people to replace fresh fruits and vegetables with this product, by saying 'who has time?'. The simple truth is; everyone has 24 hours in each of their days. If people can't find a spare 5 minutes to boil a few vegetables, there is something very wrong.
This is a description:
Daily Vegetables
HERRON Daily Vegetables is made from 100 per cent whole food powdered juice and combines the nutritional benefits of 12 ingredients in one easy-to-swallow dose. It has an ORAC result equivalent to three to four servings of vegetables. Assists in the maintenance of general health and well-being and is free from artificial colours, flavours, sweeteners, preservatives, animal products, dairy, yeast and added sugar.
Recommended dose: two capsules with a meal, once daily.
Cautions: Vitamin supplements should not replace a balanced diet. Always read the label and use only as directed. If symptoms persist, consult your healthcare professional.
* rrp: $22.99
"whole food powdered juice" firstly, people require all parts of the vegetable to get their daily intake. Secondly, it's capsule form; people are becoming too dependent on these supposed solutions to time and convenience issues. Thirdly 'with a meal'; you still have to prepare a meal?? What's the point in that; you don't have time to cook vegetables, but you have to take the replacement with a meal? Right..
OK, end rant.
Basically, health (mental and physical) needs to be more of a priority in today's local and international societies.
However, appearance can also be deceptive. A person's clothing or body type may result in them being 'labeled' as someone they are not. This appearance could be constructed intentionally for this very purpose, or it could be a seemingly unfair result of genetics and/or environment. People could appear a certain way to deceive others, or in an attempt to conceal their true selves from fear of unfortunate bullying or other pressures.
Then again, cultural and religious differences between people may result in misunderstandings of certain appearances, which can lead to offense and dispute. Personally, I find it frustrating and suppressive that trends formed in fashion and appearance (eg. size 0, different shapes, different clothing seasons) seem to have an invisible force on people to comply. Individuals who maintain and express their individuality, even if this means going against the norm, are often considered weird and consequently marginalised. This might be in extreme cases, but it still occurs too often.
OK so this is a slight rant; I've had a frustrating day, and reading a couple of articles on childhood obesity trends increasing hasn't helped. Also, seeing the advertisement on TV for Herron vegetables, or whatever it is, bugs me. They're encouraging people to replace fresh fruits and vegetables with this product, by saying 'who has time?'. The simple truth is; everyone has 24 hours in each of their days. If people can't find a spare 5 minutes to boil a few vegetables, there is something very wrong.
This is a description:
Daily Vegetables
HERRON Daily Vegetables is made from 100 per cent whole food powdered juice and combines the nutritional benefits of 12 ingredients in one easy-to-swallow dose. It has an ORAC result equivalent to three to four servings of vegetables. Assists in the maintenance of general health and well-being and is free from artificial colours, flavours, sweeteners, preservatives, animal products, dairy, yeast and added sugar.
Recommended dose: two capsules with a meal, once daily.
Cautions: Vitamin supplements should not replace a balanced diet. Always read the label and use only as directed. If symptoms persist, consult your healthcare professional.
* rrp: $22.99
"whole food powdered juice" firstly, people require all parts of the vegetable to get their daily intake. Secondly, it's capsule form; people are becoming too dependent on these supposed solutions to time and convenience issues. Thirdly 'with a meal'; you still have to prepare a meal?? What's the point in that; you don't have time to cook vegetables, but you have to take the replacement with a meal? Right..
OK, end rant.
Basically, health (mental and physical) needs to be more of a priority in today's local and international societies.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Our Story
The written word and the moving image. It's all about the character being portrayed, or characters existing together, never quite harmoniously at first.
Life. It's all about the people, the creatures, the organisms that toss the dirt, climb or kill the trees and keep the world in any sort of motion.
A man named John Gardner imparted these (paraphrased) words of wisdom on the world:
"Character is the heart and mind of your story - it is what makes it live"
Our story is whatever we make of what we can control on Earth. We can't control natural disasters, but we can recover from them, as we have proven in the past.
The state of terrorism, poverty, abuse and other atrocities occurring in the world surely place our story not even midway.
The point is, we are the characters. Why are some key characters so determined to give our story a bad ending? Perhaps this should be one story where the minor characters play a bigger role in determining the outcome, because, in this story, all people have identities and their own backgrounds, all people have the ability (although some miss the opportunity) to make their own choices and decisions, all people have beliefs and values.
So what is our turning point going to be? Who or what is going to initiate it? Even if it doesn't occur for a few thousand or million years, what is our conclusion going to be?
Some thoughts and questions to ponder.
Life. It's all about the people, the creatures, the organisms that toss the dirt, climb or kill the trees and keep the world in any sort of motion.
A man named John Gardner imparted these (paraphrased) words of wisdom on the world:
"Character is the heart and mind of your story - it is what makes it live"
Our story is whatever we make of what we can control on Earth. We can't control natural disasters, but we can recover from them, as we have proven in the past.
The state of terrorism, poverty, abuse and other atrocities occurring in the world surely place our story not even midway.
The point is, we are the characters. Why are some key characters so determined to give our story a bad ending? Perhaps this should be one story where the minor characters play a bigger role in determining the outcome, because, in this story, all people have identities and their own backgrounds, all people have the ability (although some miss the opportunity) to make their own choices and decisions, all people have beliefs and values.
So what is our turning point going to be? Who or what is going to initiate it? Even if it doesn't occur for a few thousand or million years, what is our conclusion going to be?
Some thoughts and questions to ponder.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Consumer Powerfulness
Woohoo! It seems like the price of free range eggs has, on average, decreased slightly (I couldn't find any articles backing this up on a quick search of Google news, but my dad wouldn't lie about something like that.. I'm sure..). I shouldn't be surprised what with the recent promotion of poultry welfare and various news programs and animal rights organisations exposing the conditions of battery farms, but I can't deny that I am, regardless. Pleasantly surprised, but still surprised.
What this DOES show is that consumer buying power does exist and is well and truly in operation.
Unfortunately I have a headache at the moment, and am simultaneously working on darkening and twisting a childhood tale for a uni assignment.. which I am having fun doing. Oh dear. I also have a parrot on my shoulder who should be in bed.
So, goodnight for today.
What this DOES show is that consumer buying power does exist and is well and truly in operation.
Unfortunately I have a headache at the moment, and am simultaneously working on darkening and twisting a childhood tale for a uni assignment.. which I am having fun doing. Oh dear. I also have a parrot on my shoulder who should be in bed.
So, goodnight for today.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sam the Koala
I'm very tired tonight and about to head to bed, but first wanted to write something in memory of a very special koala named Sam. Sam was rescued in the midst of the Victorian Bushfires 6 months ago by CFA firefighter David Tree. Sadly, she was put down on Thursday due to complications from Chlamydia.
To me, it is a pretty extraordinary tale: Sam was injured but survived long enough to be rescued by Mr Tree, yet ultimately succumbed to illness. It's sad to think that she'd most probably been weakened from her experiences; might she have been more capable of fighting off the disease had she been unharmed?
Still, this little koala served as an image of hope for many people, and was just heartening to watch and see.
I hope the thousands of people and wildlife who suffered and experienced losses during the fires are finding some kind of peace and slowly moving forward in rebuilding their lives.
To me, it is a pretty extraordinary tale: Sam was injured but survived long enough to be rescued by Mr Tree, yet ultimately succumbed to illness. It's sad to think that she'd most probably been weakened from her experiences; might she have been more capable of fighting off the disease had she been unharmed?
Still, this little koala served as an image of hope for many people, and was just heartening to watch and see.
I hope the thousands of people and wildlife who suffered and experienced losses during the fires are finding some kind of peace and slowly moving forward in rebuilding their lives.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Inspiration, Re-Ignition, Now What?
I absolutely love having my passion re-ignited. By that, I mean seeing, reading or hearing something that inspires and motivates me or reaffirms what I believe in, and my reasons for believing.
Often when I have my passion re-ignited, it involves writing about which ever topic. I find writing to be such a relaxing yet power instilling art form since it enables me to record my thoughts at these times and create written images which may potentially, or hopefully, reach people and in turn, inspire them.
Yesterday I read the first article in my Creative Writing textbook (essential reading for my uni course). It was a segment of a chapter from a book by Margaret Atwood. In it, she listed the many motives of writers to do just that.
The motives that particularly caught my attention (most probably because they are the primary ones that apply to me) were: 'To defend a minority group or oppressed class', 'to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves', 'to expose appalling wrongs or atrocities' and, to be totally honest with you and myself, 'to make a name that would survive death'; after all, no one wants to be ignored or forgotten.
Of course, these are just a grain of rice in the big risotto of why people write.
I have to wonder whether it was fate or pure coincidence that later last night, I turned on the TV to the beginning of 'Jamie Saves Our Bacon'. As an animal welfare supporter, this seemed an amusing sequence of events to me; was someone trying to hint or tell me something? Prod me in a direction? I'm not really religious, but I have to admit that occasionally, random events or sequences of them, feel oddly more than coincidental. For those who don't know (if, by any chance, more than one person reads this), 'Jamie Saves Our Bacon' involved Jamie Oliver exposing some of the less-than-pleasant treatments and living conditions that many farmed pigs are exposed to (the show was based in the UK I think, but many other countries employ the same systems). It is definitely worth looking up.
So, now I want to do something about this, but what? I don't think it's fair to say that one person can't make a difference, however they want to do it. In fact, it's technically impossible for one person to NOT make a difference; just like a single finger on the water creates ripples, it takes one person to inspire others. Cliched and corny, yes, but also true.
Often when I have my passion re-ignited, it involves writing about which ever topic. I find writing to be such a relaxing yet power instilling art form since it enables me to record my thoughts at these times and create written images which may potentially, or hopefully, reach people and in turn, inspire them.
Yesterday I read the first article in my Creative Writing textbook (essential reading for my uni course). It was a segment of a chapter from a book by Margaret Atwood. In it, she listed the many motives of writers to do just that.
The motives that particularly caught my attention (most probably because they are the primary ones that apply to me) were: 'To defend a minority group or oppressed class', 'to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves', 'to expose appalling wrongs or atrocities' and, to be totally honest with you and myself, 'to make a name that would survive death'; after all, no one wants to be ignored or forgotten.
Of course, these are just a grain of rice in the big risotto of why people write.
I have to wonder whether it was fate or pure coincidence that later last night, I turned on the TV to the beginning of 'Jamie Saves Our Bacon'. As an animal welfare supporter, this seemed an amusing sequence of events to me; was someone trying to hint or tell me something? Prod me in a direction? I'm not really religious, but I have to admit that occasionally, random events or sequences of them, feel oddly more than coincidental. For those who don't know (if, by any chance, more than one person reads this), 'Jamie Saves Our Bacon' involved Jamie Oliver exposing some of the less-than-pleasant treatments and living conditions that many farmed pigs are exposed to (the show was based in the UK I think, but many other countries employ the same systems). It is definitely worth looking up.
So, now I want to do something about this, but what? I don't think it's fair to say that one person can't make a difference, however they want to do it. In fact, it's technically impossible for one person to NOT make a difference; just like a single finger on the water creates ripples, it takes one person to inspire others. Cliched and corny, yes, but also true.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Progress
I had an unsettling feeling after completing the last post. I was dissatisfied. I was dissatisfied even whilst reading through the draft edition, but posted it for the sake of progress. While the incompleteness of the post likely added to the feeling of dissatisfaction, it was something more to do with the content that I felt uneasy about. I'm still not sure what. Perhaps I didn't express myself as I normally like to, or perhaps it wasn't entirely honest. Maybe I just didn't completely understand what I wrote in my own mind.
However, progress is still progress. People and their work are judged, amendments may be required and the necessary changes implemented.
I want to apply this to a broader picture now. First, the background inspiration for this post: this evening whilst in a supermarket checkout, I noticed an overweight (I'd say approaching obese) girl, probably younger than ten. I attempted to inconspicuously watch the items they were putting through the checkout, and noticed a few tins of something (not really important) and a large bottle of coke. As I had no knowledge of their motive for shopping, it would be unfair of me to judge the lack of any type of fresh food (eg. fruits and vegetables). However, this one lot of purchases by two people I had seen only this one time could stand as a decent reflection of their typical lifestyle (it might not, there may have easily been unknown circumstances such as medical conditions or whatever event - but this is the conclusion I drew from looking at the girl).
To apply this to the focus of this post: how progressive has 'progress' proven to be up to the present time? Progress, by definition, is positive development. The past years have seen massive amounts of progress in medicine and technology, but how equally balanced are the positives with the negatives that arise from fraudulent application of these breakthroughs? (for example, businesses that employ different technologies in more economically efficient ways) A big progression in technology has been in food production, with farming systems 'progressing' to the extent where animal welfare may be compromised for the sake of a greater profit margin.
In simple terms, people have gone from growing fruits and vegetables and keeping cows in their paddocks' to (years later) purchasing goods from supermarkets which have (often unknown) preservatives, added hormones and other things of a potentially harmful nature. As food production and preservation and medicine progresses, so do potential threats to human and (other) animal health. So, how do we measure progression?
However, progress is still progress. People and their work are judged, amendments may be required and the necessary changes implemented.
I want to apply this to a broader picture now. First, the background inspiration for this post: this evening whilst in a supermarket checkout, I noticed an overweight (I'd say approaching obese) girl, probably younger than ten. I attempted to inconspicuously watch the items they were putting through the checkout, and noticed a few tins of something (not really important) and a large bottle of coke. As I had no knowledge of their motive for shopping, it would be unfair of me to judge the lack of any type of fresh food (eg. fruits and vegetables). However, this one lot of purchases by two people I had seen only this one time could stand as a decent reflection of their typical lifestyle (it might not, there may have easily been unknown circumstances such as medical conditions or whatever event - but this is the conclusion I drew from looking at the girl).
To apply this to the focus of this post: how progressive has 'progress' proven to be up to the present time? Progress, by definition, is positive development. The past years have seen massive amounts of progress in medicine and technology, but how equally balanced are the positives with the negatives that arise from fraudulent application of these breakthroughs? (for example, businesses that employ different technologies in more economically efficient ways) A big progression in technology has been in food production, with farming systems 'progressing' to the extent where animal welfare may be compromised for the sake of a greater profit margin.
In simple terms, people have gone from growing fruits and vegetables and keeping cows in their paddocks' to (years later) purchasing goods from supermarkets which have (often unknown) preservatives, added hormones and other things of a potentially harmful nature. As food production and preservation and medicine progresses, so do potential threats to human and (other) animal health. So, how do we measure progression?
How It All Happened
I am a deep thinker, no doubt about it. While laying in bed this morning, I thought about that debate between creationism and evolution supporters. I also thought about a current issue I learned about in a uni lecture recently - the dispute in Iran. (Yes, I am an odd person; I don't know if it's healthy that I think about such things when I first awaken).
The linkage of these thoughts in my head caused me to consider how it all started. I'm not necessarily referring to origins. I'm also wondering how and when various cultures were established, and how many different nations became so powerfully dominated by (generally) a particular set of religious beliefs.
The question of cultures is relatively easy to answer. Groups of people (somehow) wound up on different, disconnected land masses, which prevented interaction between these groups. Logically, each group established its unique dialect and customs. The problem with answering the rest is, the answers become so overwhelmingly complex when considering how far people have evolved in that period of time. How did employment evolve from the simple rituals of hunting and gathering?
My main question is: at what point did religion come into such prominent force? Before print technology was invented (and I go way back to sometime considerably before pen and paper), these beliefs must have been spread by word-of-mouth (my history knowledge is fairly limited, by the way, so this might seem quite ignorant, in which case I apologise). I have more thoughts and theories on this, but unfortunately the jumble in my head would be slightly incomprehensible written here, so I'll perhaps include them later when they are clearer.
Here's a thought: As dinosaurs competed for food, people compete for power and supremacy. Dinosaurs became extinct as a result of this competition and changes in environment (and resource availability). Do people face a similar fate? A problem I see with this is - dinosaurs competed for food to survive. In other words, food assisted their reproductive purpose. People kill each other for power (I know in many cases it is for survival). This motive seems more dangerous and fatal than the situation the dinosaurs failed to survive through.
The linkage of these thoughts in my head caused me to consider how it all started. I'm not necessarily referring to origins. I'm also wondering how and when various cultures were established, and how many different nations became so powerfully dominated by (generally) a particular set of religious beliefs.
The question of cultures is relatively easy to answer. Groups of people (somehow) wound up on different, disconnected land masses, which prevented interaction between these groups. Logically, each group established its unique dialect and customs. The problem with answering the rest is, the answers become so overwhelmingly complex when considering how far people have evolved in that period of time. How did employment evolve from the simple rituals of hunting and gathering?
My main question is: at what point did religion come into such prominent force? Before print technology was invented (and I go way back to sometime considerably before pen and paper), these beliefs must have been spread by word-of-mouth (my history knowledge is fairly limited, by the way, so this might seem quite ignorant, in which case I apologise). I have more thoughts and theories on this, but unfortunately the jumble in my head would be slightly incomprehensible written here, so I'll perhaps include them later when they are clearer.
Here's a thought: As dinosaurs competed for food, people compete for power and supremacy. Dinosaurs became extinct as a result of this competition and changes in environment (and resource availability). Do people face a similar fate? A problem I see with this is - dinosaurs competed for food to survive. In other words, food assisted their reproductive purpose. People kill each other for power (I know in many cases it is for survival). This motive seems more dangerous and fatal than the situation the dinosaurs failed to survive through.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Will There Ever Be Another Harry Potter?
There will always be the legends in history - epic films like The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins (let's face it; all of Julie Andrew's works. She is a legend, period.) and Titanic, various book series (although I can't think of any off hand - call it the time of night, I might think of something later. I'm sure there are many deserving of the label), and TV shows like Friends (the most recent one I can think of). However, could Harry Potter be considered to exist in a league of its own? Will there ever be another series that equals or even exceeds (if possible) the enormous success and loyalty that the series has seen?
Twilight is the series that is capturing most attention currently (although not so much with the recent release of the sixth Potter film), but, (and I might be biased in saying so, given I'm not a Twilight fan), I think I'm safe to say that it isn't matching the success of the wizarding world. Perhaps vampires just don't make the mark?
Thinking about this made me wonder something about J.K Rowling's success compared with other authors in history. Perhaps it's the day and age (I question whether some things in the books would've been accepted a few decades ago), or perhaps it's the amazing ability Rowling has to make such an unreal world seem possible. Or, at least, to make the reader feel like they are part of it.
In general, human interest in things is directly proportionate to the level of suspense, mystery or excitement in the object of focus. It occurred to me that this could be an explanation for Potter's success (although this is obvious, I attempted to analyse it a bit further) - the series has a brilliant time line for the build up of suspense, an unbeatable mix of characters with some having underlying story-lines incorporated into the main story, and importantly, the excitement of elements (such as magic) which are (despite our attempts at illusion and trickery - some of which I admit are very good) beyond our own reality. Most of all, the entire series leads to a conclusion which is, for the most part, unpredictable; a very difficult feat for writers to achieve. Obviously, when a story pulls people in so much, they want to know what's going to happen. J.K Rowling managed to maintain a decent level of unpredictability and consequent suspense --> our minds' forced us to learn more. It was only slightly torturous having to wait between books. Especially between the sixth and seventh.
Even though I've read each book numerous times, I'm still worried that the first part of the seventh movie is going to finish on a helplessly frustrating cliffhanger.
Twilight is the series that is capturing most attention currently (although not so much with the recent release of the sixth Potter film), but, (and I might be biased in saying so, given I'm not a Twilight fan), I think I'm safe to say that it isn't matching the success of the wizarding world. Perhaps vampires just don't make the mark?
Thinking about this made me wonder something about J.K Rowling's success compared with other authors in history. Perhaps it's the day and age (I question whether some things in the books would've been accepted a few decades ago), or perhaps it's the amazing ability Rowling has to make such an unreal world seem possible. Or, at least, to make the reader feel like they are part of it.
In general, human interest in things is directly proportionate to the level of suspense, mystery or excitement in the object of focus. It occurred to me that this could be an explanation for Potter's success (although this is obvious, I attempted to analyse it a bit further) - the series has a brilliant time line for the build up of suspense, an unbeatable mix of characters with some having underlying story-lines incorporated into the main story, and importantly, the excitement of elements (such as magic) which are (despite our attempts at illusion and trickery - some of which I admit are very good) beyond our own reality. Most of all, the entire series leads to a conclusion which is, for the most part, unpredictable; a very difficult feat for writers to achieve. Obviously, when a story pulls people in so much, they want to know what's going to happen. J.K Rowling managed to maintain a decent level of unpredictability and consequent suspense --> our minds' forced us to learn more. It was only slightly torturous having to wait between books. Especially between the sixth and seventh.
Even though I've read each book numerous times, I'm still worried that the first part of the seventh movie is going to finish on a helplessly frustrating cliffhanger.
Random Rambling
In the past few weeks I have had numerous conversations on the deepest, most controversial of issues ranging from religion and the ongoing debate about creationism and evolution, to technology and many things in between. Many of these conversations have developed from a few simple, light-hearted words of greeting or commentary, which makes me somewhat scared; if the brain requires such little stimulus to consider these ideas in detail, it is no wonder there are so many problems in the world. I say this because, with such diversity in cultural backgrounds, varieties of education (both academic and religious), and simple differences of opinion resulting from this and other things, a whole population of inconsistent thinkers with big ideas seems like a dangerous mix.
The main topic that has caught my interest, however, is technology. By that, I mean all the visuals, internet and communication. I.e. Facebook (I'd say that word and 'Harry Potter' are in the same league of fame?), television (and in particular, news programs) and many more things that you can think of. It is difficult to say whether technology is ultimately going to help or destroy us. Or if it isn't the cause, perhaps it will be the aid in whatever event?
It is pretty awesome how one new piece of technology or one article or image can change how we view the world. It is slightly less awesome how easily many people are manipulated or otherwise influenced by the same things. It could be said that technology adds a new dimension to the very idea of 'believing what you want to believe'. It used to be rumours, gossip, word of mouth - now the spread of 'information' is like dynamite, and any false information is easy to correct but, much of the time, virtually impossible to wipe from the minds of people. The problem is, unless there is physical proof like a death or birth, there is always room for doubt, and doubt creates division and dispute within societies.
I think that's enough rambling for now! If anyone happens to visit this page, whether coincidentally or intentionally, I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
The main topic that has caught my interest, however, is technology. By that, I mean all the visuals, internet and communication. I.e. Facebook (I'd say that word and 'Harry Potter' are in the same league of fame?), television (and in particular, news programs) and many more things that you can think of. It is difficult to say whether technology is ultimately going to help or destroy us. Or if it isn't the cause, perhaps it will be the aid in whatever event?
It is pretty awesome how one new piece of technology or one article or image can change how we view the world. It is slightly less awesome how easily many people are manipulated or otherwise influenced by the same things. It could be said that technology adds a new dimension to the very idea of 'believing what you want to believe'. It used to be rumours, gossip, word of mouth - now the spread of 'information' is like dynamite, and any false information is easy to correct but, much of the time, virtually impossible to wipe from the minds of people. The problem is, unless there is physical proof like a death or birth, there is always room for doubt, and doubt creates division and dispute within societies.
I think that's enough rambling for now! If anyone happens to visit this page, whether coincidentally or intentionally, I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
Monday, August 3, 2009
A Title
As this is my first entry, I thought I'd spend a few words explaining the title 'Through Two Eyes'.
This blog will primarily consist of random thoughts and experiences I have during my every day existence. What I have come to realise after much deliberation (involving simple disagreements with people who have ideas dissimilar to my own) is that thought and experience generally all relies on perception; that is, how the individual sees the world around them.
Obviously, perception is influenced and manipulated over time by what we are taught and emotions we feel. The complexity is increased with the additional influence of each experience. In other words, perception could be seen to exist as a cycle; we experience, we perceive based on that experience. We may experience the same situation again from a slightly different perspective resulting from lessons in the meantime.
In simple terms, 'Through Two Eyes' is an acknowledgment as well as a symbol of the individual views represented in this blog. It may be seen as a disclaimer, thinking of it that way.
This blog will primarily consist of random thoughts and experiences I have during my every day existence. What I have come to realise after much deliberation (involving simple disagreements with people who have ideas dissimilar to my own) is that thought and experience generally all relies on perception; that is, how the individual sees the world around them.
Obviously, perception is influenced and manipulated over time by what we are taught and emotions we feel. The complexity is increased with the additional influence of each experience. In other words, perception could be seen to exist as a cycle; we experience, we perceive based on that experience. We may experience the same situation again from a slightly different perspective resulting from lessons in the meantime.
In simple terms, 'Through Two Eyes' is an acknowledgment as well as a symbol of the individual views represented in this blog. It may be seen as a disclaimer, thinking of it that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)