I've been thinking recently about a comic book that I'd like to write or something. I'm not a comic book writer and don't really have any connections so I probably won't, but that's not the point. The point is that I've got a cool concept, which I hereby submit to you for comment!
The idea is that a man after learning of horrible evils perpetrated be someone (I've been thinking date rape by some frat boy) wishes to set it straight but can't. He prays for the power to fulfill justice. An angel (though physically and visually just a guy), truth, appears and tells him that there's a slot open for angel of justice and that because of his prayer he'll get to take the position. The really interesting part then starts.
Truth tells this guy that he doesn't want to be justice. I've decided he'd say something along these lines, "To be a force so indiscriminate and powerful, a force so immovable and implacable that God sent His beloved son to suffer and die on earth in order to save the rest of His children from it, do you really think you can want to deal with such an overwhelming strength?"
Well, because it's a comic book he'd say yes, and then be turned into a an fiery, angelic, and vicious engine of punishment. I envision this angel inflicting horrible torture and suffering on those who've done wrong. The man when he comes to (that is to say when the spirit of justice withdraws from him) is horrified by what he's done, what he's become. Throughout the comic he tries to stop it, hold the spirit back, but never can because the burning wrath of justice will always fall upon the wicked!
Anyway, I write this not to say, "hey, wouldn't I make a good comic writer? Isn't this a cool idea?" (though your thoughts as per that subject are welcome) but rather to ask, "What is justice?" My idea for this comic isn't just a cool idea for a cool story, I see justice as an overpowering and indiscriminate force. I think if justice were to have an earthly incarnation it would go around dispensing horrific punishment to those who commit horrific crimes. In the end, her scales when weighted to one side with abominations and evils will demand of Lady Justice to bring down her sword on the other with the same force, won't they?
I see mercy, personally through Christ's atonement, as the only force to offset justice. Do people force mercy into their conceptions of justice? I wonder if this is tied to the decline of religious belief, as Deity can dispense perfect justice but man can't. Perhaps man, without deity's guidance redefines justice for himself so as to seek it in a humane way?
I certainly believe that justice and mercy must work together. A human justice system must allow for mercy to a much greater degree than what one's conception of pure justice may be. Perhaps, though, this is the core of super-heroes. We want to believe in justice, we want to believe that those who do wrong will be punished by a force beyond our mortal abilities (as individuals and a society). The religious have a real belief in such a power in their God, if they envision Him as just. What about the secular? I really don't know, if you read this and do, please leave a comment.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
What's the derivative of your PGF?
"They're a good person." This phrase drives me insane. Have you ever heard it used to actually describe someone that does good? Maybe, but much more often it's used to justify a lack of good, to overlook someone's vices. How often do you hear something like, "He may cheat on his girlfriends once in a while, but he's a good person." or "She may stew in envy and bitterness toward her sister, but she's a good person." I propose that this phrase is a deeply flawed and destructive one.
I think the inherent drawback of this phrase is that it is binary. What one is really trying to say, generally, is that so-and-so is not a bad person. The underlying assumption is that people are either good or bad. It's the reinforcement of this idea that may be the most destructive part of this phrase. Good and bad are like and hot and cold. Water may be cold, but not cold enough to drink. Water may be hot, but not hot enough to shower in. We need to stop thinking of this, and many things, as having a dividing line, but rather as a spectrum. Goodness is closeness to perfection, while badness is farther away, or closer to pure wickedness and evil.
All that said, let's cast this in some of the precise terms that I really understand. Let's say that good and evil are like a number line, there's infinity on one side (infinite goodness) and infinity on the other (infinite evil). The number picked on this line defines how good a person you are. Don't take this opportunity to say that anyone with a goodness value below x (typically zero-using negative values to denote evil and positive values to denote goodness), because this is arbitrary. More importantly, let's say that someone's goodness value is defined at any point in time by some function, which I'd like to call one's personal goodness function-or PGF. I think that likely the most important aspect of a person is not the instantaneous value of the PGF, but rather the derivative (or rate of change for you non-mathematicians out there). One who is improving by leaps and bounds, growing, learning to do good and ceasing to do evil I declare is much more worthy of praise than one who may do a great deal of good but is slowly letting wickedness, darkness, hatred, and whatever else you wish to use to describe evil fester in his/her heart and turn him/her into a force for darkness.
The derivative of the PGF also tells us with what zeal one is improving oneself. If someone is slowly growing and becoming better, good for them. If one has such a commitment to overcoming vices and developing virtues that every second seems to teach them how better to perfect themselves, so much the better.
It is by being content with ourselves that we fall into bad habits. It is by letting little flaws live peacefully within us that we learn to ignore the good things we could be doing. Only be commitment to improving, perfecting ourselves can we learn to do all that we need to for the world's problems of greed, hatred, lust, and pride to be overcome. One way we can do this is to constantly ask yourself, "What's the derivative of your PGF?"
I think the inherent drawback of this phrase is that it is binary. What one is really trying to say, generally, is that so-and-so is not a bad person. The underlying assumption is that people are either good or bad. It's the reinforcement of this idea that may be the most destructive part of this phrase. Good and bad are like and hot and cold. Water may be cold, but not cold enough to drink. Water may be hot, but not hot enough to shower in. We need to stop thinking of this, and many things, as having a dividing line, but rather as a spectrum. Goodness is closeness to perfection, while badness is farther away, or closer to pure wickedness and evil.
All that said, let's cast this in some of the precise terms that I really understand. Let's say that good and evil are like a number line, there's infinity on one side (infinite goodness) and infinity on the other (infinite evil). The number picked on this line defines how good a person you are. Don't take this opportunity to say that anyone with a goodness value below x (typically zero-using negative values to denote evil and positive values to denote goodness), because this is arbitrary. More importantly, let's say that someone's goodness value is defined at any point in time by some function, which I'd like to call one's personal goodness function-or PGF. I think that likely the most important aspect of a person is not the instantaneous value of the PGF, but rather the derivative (or rate of change for you non-mathematicians out there). One who is improving by leaps and bounds, growing, learning to do good and ceasing to do evil I declare is much more worthy of praise than one who may do a great deal of good but is slowly letting wickedness, darkness, hatred, and whatever else you wish to use to describe evil fester in his/her heart and turn him/her into a force for darkness.
The derivative of the PGF also tells us with what zeal one is improving oneself. If someone is slowly growing and becoming better, good for them. If one has such a commitment to overcoming vices and developing virtues that every second seems to teach them how better to perfect themselves, so much the better.
It is by being content with ourselves that we fall into bad habits. It is by letting little flaws live peacefully within us that we learn to ignore the good things we could be doing. Only be commitment to improving, perfecting ourselves can we learn to do all that we need to for the world's problems of greed, hatred, lust, and pride to be overcome. One way we can do this is to constantly ask yourself, "What's the derivative of your PGF?"
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
War is Hell which brings Heaven
Wow, just the title and I already know I'm stepping on some serious toes. Please, just bear with me a little, take in my ideas, and hopefully you'll see that I'm not quite the warmonger I'm sure you've assumed I am.
Obviously the question I'm trying to tackle here is: Under what circumstances is war justified? Simplified thusly, the answer is easy. I take it from the Book of Mormon: "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."[Alma 43:46] The principle is clearly taught and widely recognized by most, violence is justified when necessary for self defence. This goes for large states, governments, and organizations. One must be attacked before having legitimate reason for striking back. Thusly, addressing the current war in which the United States is involved, the "Preemptive Strike" is not justifiable. That's right, I want to go on record that I don't believe that a preemptive strike, an attack for the purpose of preventing one, is a valid reason for going to war. Moreover, therefore, that the Iraq war's declaration is justifiable.
Unfortunately, though, there is a however. However, I believe at least some deal of good has come, or at the very least could have had the political and sociological ends been pursued like they should have. A brutal dictator was overthrown and a peolple freed from his tyranny and torture. Remember those first days of whatever the P.R. label for this war is now? Iraqis celbrating in the street, hitting posters of Hussain with their shoes, which gesture as a military interrogation specialist our family knows says is one of such disdain, hatred, and malice that it's akin to saying, "if you ever are able to obtain the resources and opportunity, please hunt down and kill me and my family." That same specialist said that when some Iraqis were questioned upon being released to go back home they broke into tears and were overjoyed, because they were used to the fact being that if you were taken for questioning, you would never be seen again. Did this atmosphere last? Sadly, it seems not to. Perhaps it's just hopeful on my part, but I think that if the Iraqi democracy agenda had been pursued as hard as either candidate's campaign it might have.
The point I've wanted to make here is thus: Was the war justified? No. Was the war evil? No. Or, at the very least it's certainly on a level higher than the parade of sorrows and atrocities that folk like Micheal Moore would have you believe it is. And I think war in general must be recognized for the good that it brings. Of course the suffering brought on by the flood of violence which sweeps a land called, "combat zone" during a war is terrible. But the destruction of Nazis, unjust monarchs, or terrorists (I want to make sure it's pointed out I mean those who'll kill anyone regardless of...well anything but most importantly the worth of human life) brought forth through that sadness is important.
So, I supppose maybe I should sum up my opinion on the Iraq war, as that's where all the ire tends to lie. I think we should never have gone there. I think the reason for the war was not justifiable-though I believe Saddam's threat of W.M.D.'s was real, if only like someone brandishing a gun in your face is real even if it turns out the weapon wasn't loaded. I think the efforts going on now, though, are at least understandable and maybe honorable. And perhaps what I really want to say is just that the best way to honor those soldiers who fight on our country's behalf isn't to show disdain for the venture they're currently engaged in and wish it over, but to hope that the great deal of good which is possible does come from it, and a people learn to live for themselves instead of in fear of a soul crushing government.
War is hell, but as Dante had to pass through hell on his way to heaven, so must some communities pass through times of war to become places where goodness and happiness can abound.
Obviously the question I'm trying to tackle here is: Under what circumstances is war justified? Simplified thusly, the answer is easy. I take it from the Book of Mormon: "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."[Alma 43:46] The principle is clearly taught and widely recognized by most, violence is justified when necessary for self defence. This goes for large states, governments, and organizations. One must be attacked before having legitimate reason for striking back. Thusly, addressing the current war in which the United States is involved, the "Preemptive Strike" is not justifiable. That's right, I want to go on record that I don't believe that a preemptive strike, an attack for the purpose of preventing one, is a valid reason for going to war. Moreover, therefore, that the Iraq war's declaration is justifiable.
Unfortunately, though, there is a however. However, I believe at least some deal of good has come, or at the very least could have had the political and sociological ends been pursued like they should have. A brutal dictator was overthrown and a peolple freed from his tyranny and torture. Remember those first days of whatever the P.R. label for this war is now? Iraqis celbrating in the street, hitting posters of Hussain with their shoes, which gesture as a military interrogation specialist our family knows says is one of such disdain, hatred, and malice that it's akin to saying, "if you ever are able to obtain the resources and opportunity, please hunt down and kill me and my family." That same specialist said that when some Iraqis were questioned upon being released to go back home they broke into tears and were overjoyed, because they were used to the fact being that if you were taken for questioning, you would never be seen again. Did this atmosphere last? Sadly, it seems not to. Perhaps it's just hopeful on my part, but I think that if the Iraqi democracy agenda had been pursued as hard as either candidate's campaign it might have.
The point I've wanted to make here is thus: Was the war justified? No. Was the war evil? No. Or, at the very least it's certainly on a level higher than the parade of sorrows and atrocities that folk like Micheal Moore would have you believe it is. And I think war in general must be recognized for the good that it brings. Of course the suffering brought on by the flood of violence which sweeps a land called, "combat zone" during a war is terrible. But the destruction of Nazis, unjust monarchs, or terrorists (I want to make sure it's pointed out I mean those who'll kill anyone regardless of...well anything but most importantly the worth of human life) brought forth through that sadness is important.
So, I supppose maybe I should sum up my opinion on the Iraq war, as that's where all the ire tends to lie. I think we should never have gone there. I think the reason for the war was not justifiable-though I believe Saddam's threat of W.M.D.'s was real, if only like someone brandishing a gun in your face is real even if it turns out the weapon wasn't loaded. I think the efforts going on now, though, are at least understandable and maybe honorable. And perhaps what I really want to say is just that the best way to honor those soldiers who fight on our country's behalf isn't to show disdain for the venture they're currently engaged in and wish it over, but to hope that the great deal of good which is possible does come from it, and a people learn to live for themselves instead of in fear of a soul crushing government.
War is hell, but as Dante had to pass through hell on his way to heaven, so must some communities pass through times of war to become places where goodness and happiness can abound.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Grow up
After working with kids at a summer camp for a little while I began to think about what maturity is. What is it that these kiddos lack that makes them kids. The answer I came up with was impulse control. The kiddos just weren't skilled enough in calming those emotional flare ups or dropping a silly argument. Hence, "Why'd you hit him?" "He said I didn't like marshmallows" or "Why're you so stupid, stars don't have rings. It's physically impossible" "Well, I dunno I'm gonna look anyway." "No, you're wrong, that'd dumb..." "Guys, quit fighting!" Of course in the discussion comes the inevitable acknowledgement: some adults don't have very good impulse control. I think we usually call these people jerks, annoying, downers, or some other of the vast collection of disparaging nomenclature. Controling your emotions is necessary for getting along well with others.
There is more rewards to emotional control than a good social life, though. It's a good life, and moreover, power to act for ourselves (free will, if you go for that term). Hear me out, Emotions are brought on by outside forces. A big scary bear makes us afraid. A bouquet of flowers makes us delighted. A new computer game makes us excited.
After those examples you might say, "but Devon, I like being delighted and excited. Me too, but it might not always be the best thing. If I buy portal (which I just did, finally, by the way) and I'm so excited I start playing and don't stop until the first week of school is over, effectively destroying any opportunity for academic achievement I have for the semester, that's obviously not good. I also loose the opportunity for other exciting experiences, such as learning and in the future obtaining a good job. If my shallow ex-girlfriend who cheated on me twice and continually criticized and spoke hurtfully towards me sent me flowers and I decide, "Oh she sent me flowers that's so nice I'm going to get back with her!" my net delight will be negative (I can feel myself getting back into physics student mode!). What if the flowers are indicative of a change of heart for this wanton woman, and renewal of relationship would do good for the both of us? Well, it still isn't smart for me to just run back. I might be happy and thinking the best of her, but wisdom dictates that I take care when reviving the connection we had. First, I don't know this is the case, and past experience indicates that it won't be good for me. Secondly, she may need me to be on guard. In reviving a relationship it would be sagely of me to go in stronger than before, ready for the maladies before heaped upon me, and setting boundaries and rules of conduct between us so that she knows how to improver herself around me and I am clear about what I want in our relationship. If learn to overcome these initial reactions and rule our feelings with our mind we can increase the happiness, peace, and whatever other good thing you want to put there (I was going to put joy, but it sounded too cute and trite "happiness peace and joy!").
So, let's be clear, emotions are good. Just like water is good. I see our emotional systems to be like indoor plumbing. There's a system of valves that we need to control, letting reason dictate the flow of each pipe. If we simply let each bubble over we'll quickly drown in our passing sentiments.
There is more rewards to emotional control than a good social life, though. It's a good life, and moreover, power to act for ourselves (free will, if you go for that term). Hear me out, Emotions are brought on by outside forces. A big scary bear makes us afraid. A bouquet of flowers makes us delighted. A new computer game makes us excited.
After those examples you might say, "but Devon, I like being delighted and excited. Me too, but it might not always be the best thing. If I buy portal (which I just did, finally, by the way) and I'm so excited I start playing and don't stop until the first week of school is over, effectively destroying any opportunity for academic achievement I have for the semester, that's obviously not good. I also loose the opportunity for other exciting experiences, such as learning and in the future obtaining a good job. If my shallow ex-girlfriend who cheated on me twice and continually criticized and spoke hurtfully towards me sent me flowers and I decide, "Oh she sent me flowers that's so nice I'm going to get back with her!" my net delight will be negative (I can feel myself getting back into physics student mode!). What if the flowers are indicative of a change of heart for this wanton woman, and renewal of relationship would do good for the both of us? Well, it still isn't smart for me to just run back. I might be happy and thinking the best of her, but wisdom dictates that I take care when reviving the connection we had. First, I don't know this is the case, and past experience indicates that it won't be good for me. Secondly, she may need me to be on guard. In reviving a relationship it would be sagely of me to go in stronger than before, ready for the maladies before heaped upon me, and setting boundaries and rules of conduct between us so that she knows how to improver herself around me and I am clear about what I want in our relationship. If learn to overcome these initial reactions and rule our feelings with our mind we can increase the happiness, peace, and whatever other good thing you want to put there (I was going to put joy, but it sounded too cute and trite "happiness peace and joy!").
So, let's be clear, emotions are good. Just like water is good. I see our emotional systems to be like indoor plumbing. There's a system of valves that we need to control, letting reason dictate the flow of each pipe. If we simply let each bubble over we'll quickly drown in our passing sentiments.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Bring Me to [Spiritual] Life
I just read the account of Lazarus in the New Testament today. On this reading I made an important spiritual application. We all know that Christ is our savior, that he saves us from sin, but how often to we feel crushed by our sins? Overcome by the difficulties of life? Killed, spiritually, because of the wrongs we've done? That is when we need the Messiah the most, yet perhaps ironically it's when we give up the easiest. We tend to be very good at convincing ourselves that we're to far gone, that our ship has sailed, that we're already spiritually dead.
Martha and Mary both said to Jesus, "If You had been here, my brother would not have died." Today, I realized this is a backward looking attitude which plagues many of us. After the fact we lament our wrong actions (which we should to some degree, after all we're not repentant if we're thinking "Man, I'm so glad I shot that hooker"-that's right I'm talking to you GTA fans) and we think, "If only I had kept the Spirit with me, if only I had been Christlike then, I would not have sinned." While we need to take every effort to avoid sin, when we fall we need to remember that Christ can bring us out of our spiritual death, just as He brought Lazarus out of physical death.
Martha and Mary both said to Jesus, "If You had been here, my brother would not have died." Today, I realized this is a backward looking attitude which plagues many of us. After the fact we lament our wrong actions (which we should to some degree, after all we're not repentant if we're thinking "Man, I'm so glad I shot that hooker"-that's right I'm talking to you GTA fans) and we think, "If only I had kept the Spirit with me, if only I had been Christlike then, I would not have sinned." While we need to take every effort to avoid sin, when we fall we need to remember that Christ can bring us out of our spiritual death, just as He brought Lazarus out of physical death.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Truth Hurts, Bring on the Pain!
Thinking a little just now I had the thought, the truth really does hurt. Why? There's more than one reason, I'm sure, but probably more than anything because it forces us to see our preconceptions, our beliefs, our actions in a different light. Sometimes it's with generalizations, a researcher who studies mercury and really thinks of it as his (or her since I live in the blasted p.c. society that won't allow the continuation of linguistic conventions such as using male pronouns as representing a generic male/female person) life's work may be frustrated by people saying most metals are solid at room temperature. He may react thusly, "But what about mercury? Possibly the most useful and important metal because of <> is a liquid, so how can you say that." It might just be denial too. Someone who has strong opinions about or an emotional investment in something requires a good deal of humility, courage, and honesty to admit that something is true when it doesn't match what their ideals or preconceptions are. It could be simple linguistic totalitarianism. Someone who loves jazz may take offense to the comment, "They just played twelve different songs at the same time," though really this comment may have some accuracy if all the players were improvising together. The same thing could be said in a slightly different way that would be fine, "That was amazing, it was like they all played a different song at the same time." This probably comes up a lot in the current political correctness atmosphere.
What I really want to say is that the sting of the truth can be good. We generally mentally flee from ideas that are difficult to sync with our current ones, but we should accept new ideas and consistently revise our current ones. Hearing things which cut us to the quick tempts us to marginalize the speaker, idea, or background from which it comes. The human species must fight this temptation and learn flexibility in our mentalities, conceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. Unlike on our human bodies which is scarred from a cut, a piercing comment to our souls can cause us to improve ourselves. One who is promiscuous will naturally react with offense when he/she is said to be sexually indiscriminate. The best reaction for them is unnatural, to take the comment as a possible truth, analyze their actions and outlooks, and amend them according to how they wish to live their lives in light of this new insight.
"He who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool." -Brigham Young. The offense reaction is an unfortunate one in human nature. It is generally the opposite of constructive and at best leads to festering anger, a grudge against some group or person. Perhaps we as human beings should learn to take the comment, "That offends me," as a comment more about the speaker than the subject. Let he who says it be commenting on his own lack of self-control and hot-headed reaction rather on the heinous nature of whatever the that referred to is. People are wrong sometimes, even then we should seek to understand their thinking, and perhaps change their mind through reason and debate. What we must realize, however, is that change is always hard, especially when dealing with personalities, mentalities, ideas, etcetera. If we are to expect others to do this difficult task with theirs we must be willing to do the same with ours.
What I really want to say is that the sting of the truth can be good. We generally mentally flee from ideas that are difficult to sync with our current ones, but we should accept new ideas and consistently revise our current ones. Hearing things which cut us to the quick tempts us to marginalize the speaker, idea, or background from which it comes. The human species must fight this temptation and learn flexibility in our mentalities, conceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. Unlike on our human bodies which is scarred from a cut, a piercing comment to our souls can cause us to improve ourselves. One who is promiscuous will naturally react with offense when he/she is said to be sexually indiscriminate. The best reaction for them is unnatural, to take the comment as a possible truth, analyze their actions and outlooks, and amend them according to how they wish to live their lives in light of this new insight.
"He who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool." -Brigham Young. The offense reaction is an unfortunate one in human nature. It is generally the opposite of constructive and at best leads to festering anger, a grudge against some group or person. Perhaps we as human beings should learn to take the comment, "That offends me," as a comment more about the speaker than the subject. Let he who says it be commenting on his own lack of self-control and hot-headed reaction rather on the heinous nature of whatever the that referred to is. People are wrong sometimes, even then we should seek to understand their thinking, and perhaps change their mind through reason and debate. What we must realize, however, is that change is always hard, especially when dealing with personalities, mentalities, ideas, etcetera. If we are to expect others to do this difficult task with theirs we must be willing to do the same with ours.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Physical Attraction-not the kind between an electron and a proton if ya know what I mean
When I was younger, probably entering puberty, I came to believe that physical beauty, by which I suppose I mean sexual attraction-just to be perfectly clear, was largely a societal construct. Think about it, the Venus de Milo would be "plus size" and even Marilyn Monroe would be a size 12-16, a far cry from today's "supermodels" whose dress size approaches or is the additive and multiplicative identities of the integers/real numbers. I think it's probable that today's nice skinny figures would be considered emaciated skeletons by earlier standards, especially in those societies that valued the ability to reproduce, looking for "hearty women with child bearing hips."
My point here is to ask how much physical attraction is societal, though. Obviously sexual attraction to women, in male's case and vice-a-versa, is natural inborn desire used to perpetuate the race, but I wonder if the specifics are essentially manufactured. If you like women with big breasts, is there anything to that other than a sort of societal brainwashing? To be truly free of being a mindless follower of the crowd, must we throw off the chains of what physical characteristics are sexually attractive and look deeper into people's souls to find our attraction?
People often speak against this idea when I present it, usually with the line, "There has to be some physical attraction in a romantic relationship." Well, I agree (duh) if you find your partner a repulsive specimen of the human form that things are gonna be rough. However, physical attraction is mental, and often changes according to our opinion of someone. One may have heard that confidence is important to looking good, and it's true. Many people have probably experienced a growing attraction to someone as they got to know them better. One slowly overlooks flaws and focuses more on attractive aspects, or vice-a-versa according to one's opinion of another.
I'm sure folk have opinions on this, and I'll be interested to see the discussion that ensues.
My point here is to ask how much physical attraction is societal, though. Obviously sexual attraction to women, in male's case and vice-a-versa, is natural inborn desire used to perpetuate the race, but I wonder if the specifics are essentially manufactured. If you like women with big breasts, is there anything to that other than a sort of societal brainwashing? To be truly free of being a mindless follower of the crowd, must we throw off the chains of what physical characteristics are sexually attractive and look deeper into people's souls to find our attraction?
People often speak against this idea when I present it, usually with the line, "There has to be some physical attraction in a romantic relationship." Well, I agree (duh) if you find your partner a repulsive specimen of the human form that things are gonna be rough. However, physical attraction is mental, and often changes according to our opinion of someone. One may have heard that confidence is important to looking good, and it's true. Many people have probably experienced a growing attraction to someone as they got to know them better. One slowly overlooks flaws and focuses more on attractive aspects, or vice-a-versa according to one's opinion of another.
I'm sure folk have opinions on this, and I'll be interested to see the discussion that ensues.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
I think blog is a very ugly word
Well, I guess I have a blog now. Just fooling around helping some people I know create one I kinda fell into the whole blog thing, which is weird cause I used to hate blogs. Mostly because of the name. I mean, isn't the word blog just like...well it's like the sound you make when you're puking. "oh I shouldn't of had all that teriyaki chicken....ugh blog!"
A little more seriously though, I wonder about why all these blogs exist. The professional ones make sense, but the personal ones are somewhat curious. I wonder if I'm really so taken with myself that I feel the need to make sure that everyone knows about insignificant minutia of my life. Hmm, now I'm going to feel uncomfortable about the rest of this post, like every word is telling me, "what's the matter with you, you self-absorbed narcissist?" But I've got the account so I might as well use it is the thing, and maybe my thoughts are interesting enough that they're worth throwing out on the world wide web. I do think I have some interesting ideas, in a very humble way though, cause I'm not a self-absorbed narcissist.
A little more seriously though, I wonder about why all these blogs exist. The professional ones make sense, but the personal ones are somewhat curious. I wonder if I'm really so taken with myself that I feel the need to make sure that everyone knows about insignificant minutia of my life. Hmm, now I'm going to feel uncomfortable about the rest of this post, like every word is telling me, "what's the matter with you, you self-absorbed narcissist?" But I've got the account so I might as well use it is the thing, and maybe my thoughts are interesting enough that they're worth throwing out on the world wide web. I do think I have some interesting ideas, in a very humble way though, cause I'm not a self-absorbed narcissist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)