I think I've become more pessimistic in my general outlook on life, but I've definitely also become more inspired - at least that's what the voices in my head tell me.
I suppose what I mean is that I don't necessarily think the best in people anymore (I think I did okay if I've lasted this long ^^) in that I think that now I acknowledge the reality of people's actions. If a person has ill intent, I can now pick up on it. That's probably what it is. I hope it doesn't turn into cynicism though.
I think what it is though, is really my thoughts in terms of how I phrase things. For instance, "these are my thoughts on this topic." sounds perfectly sane and normal. "The voices in my head tell me these things on this topic." sounds crazy and out of control. Probably because someone who doesn't seem to be oneself is telling one things. Honestly though, aren't thoughts kind of like that? When you have conflicting thoughts and feelings, isn't it just that? The voices inside your head are trying to overrule whatever you desire to do. If that is articulated - "I want to eat ice cream" - and you logic yourself out of it - "But I'll get fat" - isn't that a voice that is simply yours telling you that you shouldn't eat ice cream?
I mean it just sounds creepy and weird when such thoughts are expressed in the above manner, but if you think about it, it really is simply a manipulation of a situation to sound one way or another. That's how in a court case, the criminal can be portrayed as the victim, regardless of how heinous the crime.
I've come to realize though that my portrayal of such situations has become less favorable. I don't look at things in such an optimistic light, I guess. It's not good because I need to learn to package things to make them what they are rather than putting in a negative light. I think the hardest thing to do (perhaps even impossible) is to try to present something in a purely neutral manner. I think a lot of thinkers would argue that this is impossible (though I disagree).
At any rate, rather than being more pessimistic, I think I've just changed the way I talk about things and it isn't put in the best light (is that pessimism?) and it reflects a change in my general outlook.
So how does this relate to inspiration? Well if I've started to see things in a more negative light, there's more room for despair and hopelessness in the sense of "well if things suck so much, what's the point of even trying?". Yet I definitely don't feel that way. Perhaps in acknowledging the reality of things (can being more pessimistic be considered as being more real?), I've also realized what I need to do to overcome such things (whether it's negative thinking, mean people, etc.).
Hm. Not sure what it is. I suppose (as is the case with the last entry) I might have to come back to this, but for now, I shall leave it as such.
Monday, May 20, 2013
The desert of the real is a candyland oasis
We live in an era where reality no longer matters.
What Baudrillard despaired over with the desert of the real is no longer a barren land of false realities and crushed expectations. What is happening is a fusion of the real, the hyperreal, and a fiction of reality that one wants to create.
I suppose the thought is this:
If you don't like reality, create one that you find more palatable, but just make sure to acknowledge that it isn't what is really there. Even if it isn't the "truth," who cares, right? You can believe in a rose-colored existence, knowing that it's rose-colored but at least in that opium-riddled cloud of happiness, "harsh" reality will simply be easier to deal with.
Obviously it runs the gamut but if we're all living in the hyperreal anyway, why not create one that's fun and interesting?
I'm not sure if I agree with such thinking yet I find myself guilty of doing exactly that.
"Every cloud has a silver lining."
"Well if you look at it another way, it isn't so bad."
"At least it isn't......"
I mean obviously there's a fine line between optimism and having a false sense of reality but how fine of a line is it really?
Gah. Today my thoughts have been all over the place in a messy, illogical way. I might have to come back and fix this one.
What Baudrillard despaired over with the desert of the real is no longer a barren land of false realities and crushed expectations. What is happening is a fusion of the real, the hyperreal, and a fiction of reality that one wants to create.
I suppose the thought is this:
If you don't like reality, create one that you find more palatable, but just make sure to acknowledge that it isn't what is really there. Even if it isn't the "truth," who cares, right? You can believe in a rose-colored existence, knowing that it's rose-colored but at least in that opium-riddled cloud of happiness, "harsh" reality will simply be easier to deal with.
Obviously it runs the gamut but if we're all living in the hyperreal anyway, why not create one that's fun and interesting?
I'm not sure if I agree with such thinking yet I find myself guilty of doing exactly that.
"Every cloud has a silver lining."
"Well if you look at it another way, it isn't so bad."
"At least it isn't......"
I mean obviously there's a fine line between optimism and having a false sense of reality but how fine of a line is it really?
Gah. Today my thoughts have been all over the place in a messy, illogical way. I might have to come back and fix this one.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Binaries
Much of the way the world is processed is through binaries. People see things as good/bad, fun/boring, efficient/inefficient, etc.
I realized that the world does not exist in any sort of binary at all. Things simply are and we put these things into categories of binaries. I think that's what a lot of literary theorists, especially post-structuralists try to do away with (the putting of things into binaries, giving things meaning that don't have or shouldn't have meaning, etc.).
The whole idea of a binary is not only flawed because of the fact that binaries are arguably simply a social construct, I realized the whole base of two "things are good or bad" is really wrong because there exists things that are neither good nor bad. Just as there are things that neither immoral nor moral (hence the word amoral). For example, an apple that falls from a tree is neither moral or immoral, it simply is. It can be argued that it is amoral. If the apple falls, hits a man on the head and kills him, this too is considered amoral because it was simply something that happened. Now there can be all sorts of arguments in terms of whether or not the man deserved it, whether it was his fate or whatever but focusing on the apple that fell from the tree, the act in and of itself does not fall into the realm of morality.
The whole idea of duality is in many ways absurd. Even the most basic of binaries (though how basic it is could be argued) is debatable - male and female. Where do hermaphrodites come into play? Or someone with Down's Syndrome who has the extra X chromosome. A "woman" with a penis or a "man" with breasts (naturally, of course). These people don't fit into a "category" and the binary starts to fall apart.
But then again, the whole desert of the real thing comes into play because if there's no standard, there's no truth and nothing - no foundation - for people to build meaning/beliefs onto. By beliefs, I don't mean religious beliefs, though that is part of it - I mean how people order and understand the world. I think that by and large, such beliefs are built by society and culture, though it really is a dialectic. Perhaps it could be said that what one person says and does that influences another in thought is what creates culture.
I think basically what it is, is that a person can arguably be culture because if they lived on an island they would create whatever lifestyle they wanted. If another person entered the picture, then rules and boundaries would be created. A different culture would be created through the interaction of the two people. That's why when two people (married or otherwise connected) don't interact with the rest of the world, they get "weird" to the outsiders. They've created their own culture. Then, grow that to a family, a group of families, a city and so on and so forth. Culture. Yet culture is fluid because people process things differently and think differently. However, it is not the sum of each individual's thoughts, patterns or culture, it is a compromise or the "mathematical" average of those individuals. There's always a pushing and pulling of one way to another and the way the group thinks or is expected to think has an effect on the individual, growing the thoughts, growing the ideologies and changing or shifting them as a reaction for or against culture. I suppose that's why there's so much talk about mainstream culture, the backlash (think hipsters) and other deviations of what is considered to be the norm. I suppose that's why there's all those talks about how the norm does not exist. Everyone and everything is a derivation of what culture has created to be normal.
I realized that the world does not exist in any sort of binary at all. Things simply are and we put these things into categories of binaries. I think that's what a lot of literary theorists, especially post-structuralists try to do away with (the putting of things into binaries, giving things meaning that don't have or shouldn't have meaning, etc.).
The whole idea of a binary is not only flawed because of the fact that binaries are arguably simply a social construct, I realized the whole base of two "things are good or bad" is really wrong because there exists things that are neither good nor bad. Just as there are things that neither immoral nor moral (hence the word amoral). For example, an apple that falls from a tree is neither moral or immoral, it simply is. It can be argued that it is amoral. If the apple falls, hits a man on the head and kills him, this too is considered amoral because it was simply something that happened. Now there can be all sorts of arguments in terms of whether or not the man deserved it, whether it was his fate or whatever but focusing on the apple that fell from the tree, the act in and of itself does not fall into the realm of morality.
The whole idea of duality is in many ways absurd. Even the most basic of binaries (though how basic it is could be argued) is debatable - male and female. Where do hermaphrodites come into play? Or someone with Down's Syndrome who has the extra X chromosome. A "woman" with a penis or a "man" with breasts (naturally, of course). These people don't fit into a "category" and the binary starts to fall apart.
But then again, the whole desert of the real thing comes into play because if there's no standard, there's no truth and nothing - no foundation - for people to build meaning/beliefs onto. By beliefs, I don't mean religious beliefs, though that is part of it - I mean how people order and understand the world. I think that by and large, such beliefs are built by society and culture, though it really is a dialectic. Perhaps it could be said that what one person says and does that influences another in thought is what creates culture.
I think basically what it is, is that a person can arguably be culture because if they lived on an island they would create whatever lifestyle they wanted. If another person entered the picture, then rules and boundaries would be created. A different culture would be created through the interaction of the two people. That's why when two people (married or otherwise connected) don't interact with the rest of the world, they get "weird" to the outsiders. They've created their own culture. Then, grow that to a family, a group of families, a city and so on and so forth. Culture. Yet culture is fluid because people process things differently and think differently. However, it is not the sum of each individual's thoughts, patterns or culture, it is a compromise or the "mathematical" average of those individuals. There's always a pushing and pulling of one way to another and the way the group thinks or is expected to think has an effect on the individual, growing the thoughts, growing the ideologies and changing or shifting them as a reaction for or against culture. I suppose that's why there's so much talk about mainstream culture, the backlash (think hipsters) and other deviations of what is considered to be the norm. I suppose that's why there's all those talks about how the norm does not exist. Everyone and everything is a derivation of what culture has created to be normal.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
My snooty side
Misspelled, it's snotty. Oh language. :P
Perhaps the irony is in that I feel that both words apply.
Snotty because of my immaturity in thinking that I can be snooty.
I do have a snooty voice in my head and it says very snooty things to me in a very snooty voice. It's interesting because it's at times like these when I realize how little I know and how un-entitled to such snootiness I really am.
What a funny word, snooty.
I think I prefer snotty.
Perhaps the irony is in that I feel that both words apply.
Snotty because of my immaturity in thinking that I can be snooty.
I do have a snooty voice in my head and it says very snooty things to me in a very snooty voice. It's interesting because it's at times like these when I realize how little I know and how un-entitled to such snootiness I really am.
What a funny word, snooty.
I think I prefer snotty.