Speaking of flowers, I have recently noticed patches of daffodils popping up all over the place. And this bothers me. "But why, Rachel, should the glorious tidings of spring irritate you delicate moral senses?" Yes, I am a chronic sufferer of hayfever, but this is not why. I find the daffodils very suspicious, for the following reasons:
They are all the same size, which appears to be fully grown.
They have the same number of flowers in each cluster.
They sprung up at the beginning of this week.
They are all the same.
I never saw them growing, nor anyone planting them.
They're perky and perfect, and I despise them like other things that are perky and perfect but made of silicone. (Not really, plastic boobs attract plastic minds. Haha... They don't bother me as much as these flowers.) It's as if they magically appeared, locked and loaded, ready to bring a splash of yellow into a dreary March.
Okay, they've been planted fully grown, in little clusters around campus to look nice. I'll get over it. Their life here is fake. They are intended to look nice for students and visitors and squirrels and whoever. I just find it a little surprising that the spontaneous, natural beauty of spring has been cultivated to please us.
Not even the perfect beauty of the cycle of life is beautiful enough for a college campus. Apparently, when it is "time" for flowers, there will be flowers. Bam, flowers. "Like it. They have natural beauty. It will make you feel serene and connected."
There isn't much more to point out about this, except how we cultivate beauty for aesthetic reasons, and therefore lose the deeper, essential meaning of such things... But really, that's all.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
How to: Press Friendships in a Facebook
We are the inhabitants of the 21st century. We have amazing technology that allows us to do things that are impossible in nature. And though we are able to alter the course of nature, one must ask if we are simply fooling ourselves. Sure, we are able to deny organic or biological order, but what about the indisputable way of things? Take, for a very small scale example, keeping friendships with digital tools like “MySpace,” and “Facebook”.
Such tools make it easy for us to communicate and keep in touch with people that we might otherwise never hear from again; who are not a priority. We can keep up with that friend from elementary school, the random hookup from your freshman year in college, the first young love, that girl you met at the grocery store, and potentially, everyone you ever encountered.
But what about new people, or friends who are most important? Can we realistically make enough room for the old and new alike? Are we expected to network and network until our social webs are nebulous and we walk by a blonde and say, "hi Ashley!” when her name is actually Sarah, because her profile picture looks just like another blonde's? Or, is there a critical mass, a maximum capacity of humans in our life?
Are these new social tools appropriate for our use? Maybe there just isn’t enough room. What if our minds and our hearts only have 5 positions to fill (dependent on individual emotive capacity)? Can we fit all the people we ever liked inside of us: in our heads, on our hard drives? And how many friends do you need? The best ones will always be a part of your life, like friendships before digital networking.
It is gluttonous for us to want to keep it all. Relationships can suffer while someone is still on your "friends list” but you never "write on their wall." People are “friends” with hundreds, thousands of other people. I doubt anyone keeps in touch with all of those people on a daily basis. It would be the only thing they do. So, if we can't possibly or consistently show that we care about all the people we’ve met, should we act like we can?
Why line them all up in front of us? You will hear about your cyber, quasi friends every day, whether or not you like them. And they will just be friend number 340 on a list of 500. They will continue to take up space in your life long after you have stopped interacting. We are trying to make social connections into a material thing that lasts, removing the ephemeral beauty of serendipitous encounters. You keep them around because you’re greedy and not because you actually value the experience you had. Because friendships are now material, people want to show them off, like jewelry. And, like our other possessions, our commitment to them, which is in public writing, will burden us. These material relationships will clutter our lives just like all the other junk sitting on the kitchen counter.
Friendships are not, and shouldn’t be made a material thing. Think of the commitment and the clutter, and the desire. Taking a page out of the Therevada Buddhist philosophy, it is our desire that causes suffering. We are only heightening our suffering by entertaining the fantasy, the desire to possess friendships, which are just one of many beautiful things we wish could last. When they are material then we can possess them, and the more we think we can, the more it will hurt when we realize we can’t.
The emotional conundrum comes not in the technology, but in what it really means to us. The technology isn’t a problem; it has practical, expansive, potential and application. But it is also convincing us that everything that was ever important can be permanent.
So thank you, creators of “MySpace” and “Facebook”, for also indulging our fantasy that friendships can be pressed like flowers. Just press the Faces and images and text into a cyber book, and it will all last forever.
Such tools make it easy for us to communicate and keep in touch with people that we might otherwise never hear from again; who are not a priority. We can keep up with that friend from elementary school, the random hookup from your freshman year in college, the first young love, that girl you met at the grocery store, and potentially, everyone you ever encountered.
But what about new people, or friends who are most important? Can we realistically make enough room for the old and new alike? Are we expected to network and network until our social webs are nebulous and we walk by a blonde and say, "hi Ashley!” when her name is actually Sarah, because her profile picture looks just like another blonde's? Or, is there a critical mass, a maximum capacity of humans in our life?
Are these new social tools appropriate for our use? Maybe there just isn’t enough room. What if our minds and our hearts only have 5 positions to fill (dependent on individual emotive capacity)? Can we fit all the people we ever liked inside of us: in our heads, on our hard drives? And how many friends do you need? The best ones will always be a part of your life, like friendships before digital networking.
It is gluttonous for us to want to keep it all. Relationships can suffer while someone is still on your "friends list” but you never "write on their wall." People are “friends” with hundreds, thousands of other people. I doubt anyone keeps in touch with all of those people on a daily basis. It would be the only thing they do. So, if we can't possibly or consistently show that we care about all the people we’ve met, should we act like we can?
Why line them all up in front of us? You will hear about your cyber, quasi friends every day, whether or not you like them. And they will just be friend number 340 on a list of 500. They will continue to take up space in your life long after you have stopped interacting. We are trying to make social connections into a material thing that lasts, removing the ephemeral beauty of serendipitous encounters. You keep them around because you’re greedy and not because you actually value the experience you had. Because friendships are now material, people want to show them off, like jewelry. And, like our other possessions, our commitment to them, which is in public writing, will burden us. These material relationships will clutter our lives just like all the other junk sitting on the kitchen counter.
Friendships are not, and shouldn’t be made a material thing. Think of the commitment and the clutter, and the desire. Taking a page out of the Therevada Buddhist philosophy, it is our desire that causes suffering. We are only heightening our suffering by entertaining the fantasy, the desire to possess friendships, which are just one of many beautiful things we wish could last. When they are material then we can possess them, and the more we think we can, the more it will hurt when we realize we can’t.
The emotional conundrum comes not in the technology, but in what it really means to us. The technology isn’t a problem; it has practical, expansive, potential and application. But it is also convincing us that everything that was ever important can be permanent.
So thank you, creators of “MySpace” and “Facebook”, for also indulging our fantasy that friendships can be pressed like flowers. Just press the Faces and images and text into a cyber book, and it will all last forever.
Monday, January 29, 2007
My Period Thinks It's A Rockstar
My period likes to show up for special occasions, often uninvited, but dressed in a tuxedo with guitar and amp in hand. "Hey, good to see you again," I'd say. "Boy, you look classy... Whoa, hey, what's the guitar for? You can't bring that inside."
"Sha baby, I'm ready to rockn'roll, and you got tickets in the front row!"
Alright, it's not really invited but, when I look on my calendar, it was scheduled for a visit that week. What I don't understand is how "that week" is always finals, or the first week at college band camp hell, or prom weekend, or Sadies, or the first week of track, the week we traveled through Bosnia and Croatia, or my stressful excursion to New York schools. Really, I must be doing Period a favor, time and time again, even though I have never received one iota of gratefulness.
I guess Period is doing something for me too. Not just keeping me an unpregnant woman, but keeping me straight. No, not heterosexual- honest. It makes me stick to my commitments. Period was, somehow, invited, and Period will come along. It just never wants to miss a single one of my important events.
In fact, my Period could even be a best friend. It is with me at all times, inadvertently. It shows up on time, every time, for big events. It keeps its word and teaches me to keep mine.
So, when I answer the door and politely say, "Welcome, you're just in time. Please have a seat," and Period, instead, smashes its guitar against the walls of my uterus screaming, "I'm Peter-fucking-Townshend!!" I just grimace and bear it. After all, who else is lucky enough to have a friend this devoted?
"Sha baby, I'm ready to rockn'roll, and you got tickets in the front row!"
Alright, it's not really invited but, when I look on my calendar, it was scheduled for a visit that week. What I don't understand is how "that week" is always finals, or the first week at college band camp hell, or prom weekend, or Sadies, or the first week of track, the week we traveled through Bosnia and Croatia, or my stressful excursion to New York schools. Really, I must be doing Period a favor, time and time again, even though I have never received one iota of gratefulness.
I guess Period is doing something for me too. Not just keeping me an unpregnant woman, but keeping me straight. No, not heterosexual- honest. It makes me stick to my commitments. Period was, somehow, invited, and Period will come along. It just never wants to miss a single one of my important events.
In fact, my Period could even be a best friend. It is with me at all times, inadvertently. It shows up on time, every time, for big events. It keeps its word and teaches me to keep mine.
So, when I answer the door and politely say, "Welcome, you're just in time. Please have a seat," and Period, instead, smashes its guitar against the walls of my uterus screaming, "I'm Peter-fucking-Townshend!!" I just grimace and bear it. After all, who else is lucky enough to have a friend this devoted?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
A Story: Religion and RaH
For my whole life, I have avoided religion. That's not to say that we are desperate enemies, but more anonymous passerbys on the busy streets of life. Yes, we've had our run-ins: a Sunday or two with relatives in a Lutheran church, awkward "Grace" at other families' dinner tables, a few years in Unitarian Christmas plays, and awesome middle school trips to hostels and sister churches in foreign locations. For the most part, Religion and I know relatively little about each other, and we had a comfortable, unobtrusive relationship. It leaves me alone and I do not badger its image ruthlessly in my own home or patronizingly in public. Our agreement is unbinding and completely consensual. Or so I thought.
Lately, Religion has been getting in my face: pushing me down stairs, tripping me up, and trying to pick a fight in general. A fight is shall receive, by george. But I'm not sure what to do just yet. You see, this has never been a problem and I have never equipped myself for defense.
Though I am not a religious person, I am spiritual. I have faith in life, in the natural order, the "way" of things. This might sound a bit like the Tao, which I like to identify as a philosophy. I love to involve myself with Philosophy because it is curious, and diverse, profound, and knowledgeable. It doesn't force you to believe one thing or the other, and twist your arm when you're wrong. I like it because it is a force that lives in you. Your ability to discern and search and, ultimately, decide. This is the opposite of Religion.
Now Religion, I'm not saying that you're unattractive, or a bully... but I will if you keep up your shenanigans. Just yesterday I went to a leadership clinic. It was nothing particularly notable, to be honest, except the last segment I was involved in. We were asked to write down adjectives for "Leadership", "Religion", and "Spirituality". I see each of these as very separate from one another, yet it was my job to understand how they were all deeply related. After the course was finished, I explained that I did not see the influence of Religion on Leadership. Apparently I had missed the entire point. But our instructor did not enlighten me, instead saying that I should talk to her afterwards. There was an implication that leaders must be religious. That your choices are influenced by your religion. But I am not religious, and I make choices. Does that mean that they are all wrong because they are not informed by a higher, nameable power; not to mention a vast network of people that don't know me?
I have a friend. He is a very dear friend of mine. He is religious, and has vowed to a choice in his life. A "permanent" choice that excludes others of different choices. I think, "Wow. That is dedication, to choose something when you are very young and ignorant, and stick to it through your whole life. Even if you chance to learn of something better. That must be Religion." But, when I asked him why he had made a lifelong choice he explained that his friends had as well. He continues making this choice because his parents told him to and so do his friends. Doesn't sound like a young man at all, does it? It is quite a telling example of Religion. He doesn't live with this choice because he thinks it's right, or because it says so in the Bible, but because his friends do. That is Religion. Doing what your told because someone told you to.
Really, it shouldn't impress me that Religion is making such a battle for my eternal soul at the moment. As long as I have never associated myself with a religion, people have equally tried to associate me with one. "You're Protestant or Catholic? Oh, Unitarian church? What's that? Like Puritans? No? Oh, okay, so you're Buddhist..." Rarely can people understand that I do not affiliate with a religion. In the same leadership workshop, the activity director gave us a handout at the end. On it was a suggested website to identify your religion.(Posted below) "Oh, thank GOD. Now I FINALLY know. I have been liberated from my own tortured soul for some other force to look after me." Like finding a pregnancy test to be negative. "THANK GOD." It's as if you need one, like a social security number. Otherwise you "technically don't exist". People want to be tolerant of any religion you are, to debate and ask questions or start wars, but they cannot be tolerant of your ultimate personal decision, to identify as an individual. They want to know your group, category, and NA is not on the list. If you don't belong somewhere in here, then you must not really be here at all.
Ultimately, I have decided to answer Religion's challenge with faith of my own. Apparently, these set of challenges have been laid before me, perhaps because I have so successfully avoided them my entire life, and I've got to deal. There are obstacles that one faces in one's life that will not resolve until they are confronted. So I'm preparing to engage in this dirty battle for the ultimate freedom of belief.
Find Your Religion Quiz:
www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/
Lately, Religion has been getting in my face: pushing me down stairs, tripping me up, and trying to pick a fight in general. A fight is shall receive, by george. But I'm not sure what to do just yet. You see, this has never been a problem and I have never equipped myself for defense.
Though I am not a religious person, I am spiritual. I have faith in life, in the natural order, the "way" of things. This might sound a bit like the Tao, which I like to identify as a philosophy. I love to involve myself with Philosophy because it is curious, and diverse, profound, and knowledgeable. It doesn't force you to believe one thing or the other, and twist your arm when you're wrong. I like it because it is a force that lives in you. Your ability to discern and search and, ultimately, decide. This is the opposite of Religion.
Now Religion, I'm not saying that you're unattractive, or a bully... but I will if you keep up your shenanigans. Just yesterday I went to a leadership clinic. It was nothing particularly notable, to be honest, except the last segment I was involved in. We were asked to write down adjectives for "Leadership", "Religion", and "Spirituality". I see each of these as very separate from one another, yet it was my job to understand how they were all deeply related. After the course was finished, I explained that I did not see the influence of Religion on Leadership. Apparently I had missed the entire point. But our instructor did not enlighten me, instead saying that I should talk to her afterwards. There was an implication that leaders must be religious. That your choices are influenced by your religion. But I am not religious, and I make choices. Does that mean that they are all wrong because they are not informed by a higher, nameable power; not to mention a vast network of people that don't know me?
I have a friend. He is a very dear friend of mine. He is religious, and has vowed to a choice in his life. A "permanent" choice that excludes others of different choices. I think, "Wow. That is dedication, to choose something when you are very young and ignorant, and stick to it through your whole life. Even if you chance to learn of something better. That must be Religion." But, when I asked him why he had made a lifelong choice he explained that his friends had as well. He continues making this choice because his parents told him to and so do his friends. Doesn't sound like a young man at all, does it? It is quite a telling example of Religion. He doesn't live with this choice because he thinks it's right, or because it says so in the Bible, but because his friends do. That is Religion. Doing what your told because someone told you to.
Really, it shouldn't impress me that Religion is making such a battle for my eternal soul at the moment. As long as I have never associated myself with a religion, people have equally tried to associate me with one. "You're Protestant or Catholic? Oh, Unitarian church? What's that? Like Puritans? No? Oh, okay, so you're Buddhist..." Rarely can people understand that I do not affiliate with a religion. In the same leadership workshop, the activity director gave us a handout at the end. On it was a suggested website to identify your religion.(Posted below) "Oh, thank GOD. Now I FINALLY know. I have been liberated from my own tortured soul for some other force to look after me." Like finding a pregnancy test to be negative. "THANK GOD." It's as if you need one, like a social security number. Otherwise you "technically don't exist". People want to be tolerant of any religion you are, to debate and ask questions or start wars, but they cannot be tolerant of your ultimate personal decision, to identify as an individual. They want to know your group, category, and NA is not on the list. If you don't belong somewhere in here, then you must not really be here at all.
Ultimately, I have decided to answer Religion's challenge with faith of my own. Apparently, these set of challenges have been laid before me, perhaps because I have so successfully avoided them my entire life, and I've got to deal. There are obstacles that one faces in one's life that will not resolve until they are confronted. So I'm preparing to engage in this dirty battle for the ultimate freedom of belief.
Find Your Religion Quiz:
www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/
Measuring Time
After the thought, i realized that this idea sounded eerily like that song from rent...
For just a vacation, indefinite, I would like to visit a place that does not measure time in days. Or minutes, or hours, or seconds. Has this linear, objectified style progressed us, as the human race? Everything is pressure, because the measurement never changes. The meter keeps ticking away until your life and it's end are only a compilation of seconds. It almost offends me that my life is always being pushed away by a clock.
The primitive ways of telling time were nature based. It was reasonable to measure nomadic habits with the stars or the changing of the seasons, because those are real. But, thanks to the Greeks and Christian Huygen , we now have a constant force of our own to battle those of nature. When we made clocks, that's when people's agendas deviated from nature. Now, no matter how long winter lasts, we will still have daylight "savings" time. I'm not saying that time doesn't exist, because physically, it does. But why "time"? Why these minute increments that are separate but somehow overriding of all other factors in the UNIVERSE?
How about measuring in emotions or progress? We might feel a lot better about ourselves. If time was only quantified by progress then we would be a lot farther then we are now. If time wasted didn't exist, would we waste it?
I have a paper due wednesday, two thursday, and one on friday. There are only 24 hours in a day. So, each hour I spent not writing those papers is an hour lost. And, no matter the value of what i do with that time, consequences are still brewing on the horizon. If we measured time in feelings, I would turn in that paper when I felt ready, not on Thursday. Thursday is not the day that i feel ready, but i am prepared to force myself into believing that it is. Probably it would be better if I turned it in when I felt ready. But when would that be? Who knows! Why does it matter? Because we have to know if I have learned anything. Because I only have a few years to learn what I am supposed to before people stop trying to teach me. However, try as they might, understanding is something that cannot simply be rushed along with the due dates of papers. People take years to learn things, and may never value their college experience, let's say, until they're 60.
Time is a human construct, a cognitive schema that we automatically place experiences into for them to have a meaningful area in our brains. Does anyone actually measure time without time? With experience or growth? If I decided to shape my own reality around such, could I function at all in our modern world?
Speculation aside, I have only 24 hours in each day. I have made a pie chart about what I should be doing with my time in order to better understand what I do with my time. I wonder if two hours (about 8% of the day) spent battling the idea of time will be too much. A waste.
For just a vacation, indefinite, I would like to visit a place that does not measure time in days. Or minutes, or hours, or seconds. Has this linear, objectified style progressed us, as the human race? Everything is pressure, because the measurement never changes. The meter keeps ticking away until your life and it's end are only a compilation of seconds. It almost offends me that my life is always being pushed away by a clock.
The primitive ways of telling time were nature based. It was reasonable to measure nomadic habits with the stars or the changing of the seasons, because those are real. But, thanks to the Greeks and Christian Huygen , we now have a constant force of our own to battle those of nature. When we made clocks, that's when people's agendas deviated from nature. Now, no matter how long winter lasts, we will still have daylight "savings" time. I'm not saying that time doesn't exist, because physically, it does. But why "time"? Why these minute increments that are separate but somehow overriding of all other factors in the UNIVERSE?
How about measuring in emotions or progress? We might feel a lot better about ourselves. If time was only quantified by progress then we would be a lot farther then we are now. If time wasted didn't exist, would we waste it?
I have a paper due wednesday, two thursday, and one on friday. There are only 24 hours in a day. So, each hour I spent not writing those papers is an hour lost. And, no matter the value of what i do with that time, consequences are still brewing on the horizon. If we measured time in feelings, I would turn in that paper when I felt ready, not on Thursday. Thursday is not the day that i feel ready, but i am prepared to force myself into believing that it is. Probably it would be better if I turned it in when I felt ready. But when would that be? Who knows! Why does it matter? Because we have to know if I have learned anything. Because I only have a few years to learn what I am supposed to before people stop trying to teach me. However, try as they might, understanding is something that cannot simply be rushed along with the due dates of papers. People take years to learn things, and may never value their college experience, let's say, until they're 60.
Time is a human construct, a cognitive schema that we automatically place experiences into for them to have a meaningful area in our brains. Does anyone actually measure time without time? With experience or growth? If I decided to shape my own reality around such, could I function at all in our modern world?
Speculation aside, I have only 24 hours in each day. I have made a pie chart about what I should be doing with my time in order to better understand what I do with my time. I wonder if two hours (about 8% of the day) spent battling the idea of time will be too much. A waste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)