Philosophical Musing of Uselessness

It has become more and more apparent that there is a cycle to how some people do things. A cycle which can be cruel or not depending on the task at hand. I'm talking of course about the fact that most everything we do involves some kind of time waiting. Waiting for a bus, waiting for a time slot to roll around, or waiting on a DVD to finish burning. It seems we are all always waiting on something.

The cycle starts when we initialize the action. We come up with an idea, share it, sketch it out in our notebooks (be them in our heads or in actual notebooks), and then we attempt to produce the idea into reality.

The process then goes into the waiting phase. We wait on financial backing for the idea or we wait on the product to pop out in its finished form.

We then enter in another waiting stage which is variable depending on how we present the object. Here, we try to make people believe that what we are producing is the greatest thing of all time and that everyone should have at least two in their own home. In the commercial sense, that is. This phase of waiting can be applied in a variety of fashions from waiting on results back from a loan review to even waiting on something as trivial as for someone to sign on your favorite internet messaging system.

And then the results come in. They are either what we want or what we don't want. That isn't up to us to decide in the end, although some would argue that we can determine how to change it into the results we want. Then what happens?

We wait some more while we either come up with a new idea or make money off the one that was sold to the masses. We wait through the summer until the new school year starts, sometimes doing nothing if we can get away with it. We wait until someone calls us back for another job interview because they liked our applications. We wait for opportunity even though we say that opportunity waits for no one.

We are always in the wings. We can be and more often than not are doing something else while we are waiting, but nevertheless, we are always waiting for something. We only think we are not because we make ourselves busy by doing other things.

Now, there are others out there that are all about taking action and not waiting but doing something. Even the most persistent of activists are waiting for a result, waiting on a change if not demanding it. What makes them any better than the average person that does nothing but wait? Is it because they get their results quicker?

Their results do not come quicker than any other person's attempt to change the world. It just looks like they are. The activists may come off as impatient given my view, but they are more of a catalyst than someone who is impatient. They rush results, sometimes poorly. And rushed changes can result in conflicts as seen from all the revolutions that happened before my typing this entry. Some minor, some major, and others biblical.

Still, there are some out there waiting for a change that we only believe has already happened. There are some that believe we have failed in all past revolutions and other social changes, waiting for people to wake up and realize this truth. You can find this in all the satire we see daily in the newspaper cartoons.

All that being said, most people are waiting for something positive to happen like the second coming or something awesome like that. Frankly, I'm just waiting for our race to go the way of the dinosaurs. Given our current state, I won't have to wait very long.

Another Emo Post

It's been a while since I last had a whiny post, but I think this morning warrents it.

Last night, I noticed that I was talking too much. I also found myself saying and acting in a way I don't normally do. Something apparently snapped. The social isolation and alienation made me go mad during the conversation.

This morning, a very honest student confided in me that I weird people out. This isn't the first time I've been told this. This isn't also the first time that people suggest that I try and change that.

This isn't the first time I've also said the same thing I've been saying about trying as hard as I could but am unable to change certain aspect of my personality. Nobody believes me.

Humans can change. We are kind of programed to do so. But when we are too much of an individual, we end up becoming weird. To be normal, you have to be unique enough to still be different but conform enough to be the same. It's strange to have a point where we have to stop the change because changing too much is a bad thing.

Another mindless rambling.
Another emo post.
Another bit of my angst trying to get out before it comes out in a bad way.

The fact that I weird people out is something I've accepted, mostly because I've gotten used to the lack of interest in going out and making friends despite this want to socialize. I know, it's not healthy, but knowing how I act around people I'm comfortable with in a private setting? It's probably for the best. Unfortunately, I can't change what people think of me even if I change my more frowned upon characteristics. Someone is always going to be weirded out by me.

Home Pages and the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

I originally wrote this for an assignment, but at the end of it, I asked some questions that I think would warrant a pretty interesting batch of feedback. I thought I'd post it here to see if I haven't falling into complete obscurity in a world of global out reach. I encourage people that find this entry to leave a comment no matter how ignorant it may be. After all, simplest response is often the most intelligent.

Web sites and home pages are no different than the television programs we see today. They are part of an "information game" in which the viewer receives information and then has to process it. This information can range from anything from politics to popular culture to propaganda.

What makes the web different from television is the interactivity of the content found in web-based productions. The viewer can not only receive information, but can also produce it. Communication of information on the web is more like a telephone in that it is presented on a two-way road. While one person can use elements of propaganda on their home page, thereby manipulating the information received, another can link to that home page causing a growth or even death of the culture. This interactivity is more engaging than the passive one-way flow of information that television presents. In short, everyone has an opinion and can express it in a way that is uninhibited by massive corporations and most democratic governments.

However, much like television, this level of interactive production is limited only to a certain demographic despite the global implication of publishing on the web. A user is going to get only so-many hits, and most probably won’t be from the other side of the planet. The fact that a home page is potentially available to the world, however, does present us with a way to extend ourselves beyond wherever we live. This indirectly created a sense of production quality, where the more professional the home page appears, the more validated it is received as an information source. The tools are available for this relatively freely. It is how well they are used that determines how valid the home page and the person producing it is at presenting the information.

We are the builders of a new form of cultural identity found within a world of transgendered anonymity where even the English language is a minority.

Questions

1. Is it possible for even the most valid-looking propaganda-driven home page to be ignored or seen as complete farce given its level of professional aesthetic?


2. What happens to the person who is only known by the screen name they have chosen on the web with the level of anonymity the web offers? In other words, do we hate the person behind the screen name or do we hate the screen name?


3. If the web is the essence of cultural production, then why are some governments trying to inhibit what can and can’t be seen and interacted with by users? Are some governments inhibiting cultural growth by censoring the web and its content?

Brokeback Mountain and Fake Love

I read recently that Hollywood loves to produce this thing called fake love. They present this ideal romantic setting that everyone wants to fall into. It's what makes actors sometimes. After all, when you are good looking as some of the actors these days, how can you not fall in love when they start showing that men can be just as sensitive as women want them to be?

I just finished watching Brokeback Mountain for the first time. I bought the DVD the day it came out, but didn't have the time until this evening. The movie ended about at midnight, and I found myself denied something. What was I denied? The idea of romance.

Ever since the movie came out in theatres, it has been built up as this true-to-life gay love story. There are no rose lens covering the cameras. The film tried to be as honest and as contemporary as it can be. It succeeded.

It also made me question my idea of this thing called love. I stumbled upon a National Geographic article earlier this year talking about how love is no different than any other chemical imbalance that triggers things like ADD and OCD. Yet, thanks to Hollywood, we think love is this magical moment where we find someone and time stops. Once that happens, that's it. You are destine to be together until you either divorce or die.

And it's suppose to be magical. But chances are, it rarely is.

The divorce rate in America sums it up nicely. There is no such thing as love. Love is just something we make up to blind us into thinking that we like someone we are attracted to when all we want is either sex or companionship. We claim to make families out of love, but in reality, we are just fulfilling our biological programming. That is, those of us that are not programmed to thin out the herd. But even those of us that are, for us there is no such thing as love either.

The only love that is real is, ironically, the fake love that is shown in movies. It is real because the actors and actresses make it real. They give us what we can never have. Why? Because that is their job. To perform our dreams and our stories for us because we can't live them ourselves.

Is there love out there? No. Is there attachment to another person? Yes. So much so that some of us solidify that obsession by getting married. Right now, I am starting to believe that marriage is no different than having to wash your hands fifty times a day just because you have to.

This film, much like most truths, was a bitter pill to swallow. I didn't take away what most of the reviews took away from the film, about how this is a step forward into opening the country's eyes into the fact that we are human no matter who we fall in love with. What I took away from this film is worlds different than most.

Brokeback Mountain taught me that it doesn't matter what sexuality you are. There is no such thing as love. Period.

Trying to Pursued Myself

I wrote this for a Time Base Media assignment, but ultimately never got to use it because of character limits and the inability to read it as it flashed across the screen. And so, I share the text with the world now.

A lot of people are telling me that I should stop comparing myself to other people. They tell me that this is the cause for several moments of self defeat. In all reality, you can't stop being compared to other people even if you yourself don't do this.

When looking for a job, you are going to be in competition with other people who are looking for the same job. As confident as you are that your resume is what they want to see, there is a chance that there is someone out there that is better than you. The employer will no doubt notice this and hire said better person. However, the reverse is also true. You can be the best person that they have in their stack of applications, but they won't hire you. Why? Because you are over qualified for the job.

In this example and in other examples like this, you are still in competition with other people, and you are still being compared to other people. That being said, what are the benefits of not comparing yourself to other people in this society?

One benefit of not comparing yourself to anyone else is that you open yourself up to a realm of purity unhindered by some intangible bar of standards. You can say what you want, do what you want, and act like you want without anyone telling you otherwise. Psychologically, this could lead to a healthier and happier state of mind. In other words, that state of being that has escaped most adults after they start having worries, which is some time in everyone's childhood when something like a deadline is asked from a teacher for a simple piece of homework.

The other benefit to not comparing yourself to anyone is that everything you do is new and exciting, even if someone has done or is doing the exact same thing in one fashion or another. In most projects, be them artistic or even corporate, this causes engagement if not a sense of commitment that is only changed when someone starts thinking about what the other person is doing. With this in mind, comparing your product to the product of your peers will ultimately cause one of two things.

The first of these two is the drive to be better than whom you are comparing yourself to. Being better normally means that you set the bar of standards for everyone else to live by (although not always, as displayed by the example of the overqualified worker). The only down side to this is once you have set that bar for everyone, there will be others that want to pass even that bar. Case and point, the Olympic and World Records of human achievements. Each record is a comparison of people to other people, and each individual record changes whenever someone sees the bar and is driven to go past it. This is the positive benefit to comparing yourself to other people.

The second result of comparing your product to other people is that of inhibiting production. A person will see the bar of expectation and may get discouraged, if not angry and frustrated, by the fact that there is a better product out there. Inventors have to deal with this very often, as someone some where has already invented and beaten the others to the punch with the same idea. Because of this, those that believe originality and innovation is the key to setting the standards often give up, as the novelty of the product has already been introduced into the marketplace. This negative result can only be canceled out by the first result, in which comparing yourself to other results in a drive to become better even if the idea or product is unoriginal, thereby creating what is known as "the new spin."

The key factor in deciding which of these two paths happen depends on the person. In both cases, those that don't compare themselves to anyone are able to work and produce uninhibited by originality or standards. The only definite time for comparison comes when that product is finished. If said person wishes for that product to be on public display, then a path must be picked as to the fate of the product itself and, in turn, the person. From there, the determining factor as to which of the two paths a person picks is strictly psychological. If the product was not meant for the public, then everything I have said and will say about comparison is considered null and void.

It's rather difficult to escape public exposure, as even the most private of things often end up finding their way into the public arena. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the product that everyone produces is automatically going to be displayed in public. Once in the eyes of the public, is it then just as difficult to avoid being compared to everyone else.

The public has a tendency to compare everything to everything else in the realm of general knowledge. Television is a good example of this, as individual program ratings will determine which of the many crime scene investigation shows gets another season and which ones gets cancelled. The public also determines which books sell, which movies get a sequel, and even what brand of toilet paper the local drug store should sell. And they all decide this by comparing everything to everything else. The system of comparison varies from group to group, but the overall idea is this: If it is better and/or cheaper than what is out there now, then that's the one to go with.

This style of comparison may seen as exclusive to the commercial or entertainment markets, but it applies to everything else as well. Someone always is comparing something to something else. The employer is comparing applications for a position he or she needs filled to see who is the more qualified; art buyers are comparing this work to that work to determine which is more engaging to the viewer if not to see if it falls into their personal taste; sport teams and individual athletes review recorded plays of their competition to better prepare themselves in an effort to come out on top; politicians are compared to the ones that came before them or are working along side with them, which ends up determining their public appeal and approval as far as what their actions' effect on the public. We, as the public, even compare culture and religion to each other, mostly to single out the differences between what it is that makes us individuals. But is doing so a bad thing?

Comparing one thing to another is a bad thing depending on what is being compared and why. For example, a criminal is labeled as the worst person since the last criminal with the same title. Barring if said criminal gets the death sentence or not, this comparison is detrimental to the indiviual's overall reputation. He is the meanest of the mean until someone comes along that is meaner than him. This means that there is someone out there that could be worse than the worst person you can think of right now. In this case, one has to hope that nobody wants the title of "Worst Criminal in the World" and is inhibited by that intangible bar.

However, being told that you are the worst at something can cause the positive result to come out. Being told that you are the worst student in the class could cause one to strive to be better and actually meet the standards expected from the class. In this sense, comparing yourself to others is a good thing, as it helps you figure out where you stand in the invisible ranking system of the world. In other words, it isn't so much your fault as it is the fault of the ranking system to determine who is better than you and who you are better than. This is the problem with comparing yourself with other people.

The problem with comparing yourself with others isn't if it is good or bad. It should be obvious that the idea of the action being good or bad is contextual. The problem is with who sets the bar. With national records and Olympic records, the people that set the bar are the ones that have achieved it and have documented proof of such achievement. In matters of public opinion such as which television show is better, the bar is set by the majority. That bar is always in flux. One month reality shows are the big ratings winner, and then the next month the winner are the crime shows. When comparing yourself to others, you set the bar.

So, now that we have figure out who sets the bar of standards, another question comes out: how high do you set that bar for yourself? Again, this is contextual based on the individual. An athlete may have a rival whom he or she wishes to beat out in one fashion or another. Normally, this rival is better than said athlete and continues to get better until the athlete beats the rival, during which the roles are reversed. So what happens to the rival? Well, let's pretend that this rival knows that there is someone better now out there, but is unable to pass the newly set bar. He or she does have the drive to attempt to beat out their new rival and quits, seeing as the goal as an impossibility. The athlete's bar set by themselves is to be better than the rest, but the rival knows that no amount of training can get him past the new standard and expectation. Two individuals in the same field with different personalities entirely.

In retrospect, this entire time I've been comparing the good and the bad of comparing one's self to another. And in a strange twist of irony, I have yet to figure out if even comparing those two together is a good or bad thing in itself. After all, the only way to determine what is good and what is bad is either by public or personal opinion. The majority or the individual has the choice of saying what is good and what is bad through nothing but pure comparison.

That being said, the only way I can determine if comparing myself to other people is a good thing or a bad thing is to know where my own personal bar of standards is set for what it is that I want to do. However, before that, I must determine if I even care about what the other person is doing in the same field of interest. If I do care, I have to set a bar. If I don't care, I can choose to set a bar or not depending on my own individual idiosyncrasies. After figuring out if there is even a bar set, I have to ask myself several questions. Chef among the questions is this: do I personally think I can reach if not pass the bar that I set for myself? If not, do I lower the bar? Would lowering the bar be a bad thing in itself when compared to keeping it where I set it in the first place?

The last question is where the self-defeating nature comes in when you compare yourself to others. And again, another comparison comes into play as to if it is a good thing or a bad thing to lower your bar of standards for yourself. At best, this is determined by what other people think of you as a person. For someone seen by other people as not worth their weight in salt, lowering your expectations as to what you are able to do may be seen as being realistic. For someone seen by others as a great person with equally great potential, lowering the bar is a bad thing, as essentially you are denying what people think so highly of you as a person.

But what happens if you don't care about what people think? You ultimately don't have anyone telling you what is good and what is bad for you. Without even that basic comparison, you end up not having to compare anything to anything else. If nobody else's opinion matters, then the only logical choice as to whose opinion does matter falls on yourself. Ultimately, this means that you get to choose what is good and what is bad, not for the world, but for yourself.

So for me, do I consider comparing myself to other people a good or bad thing? Given everything I've said without going into my own personal idiosyncrasies, I've come to this conclusion. The people that have been telling me this for years are right. I really should stop comparing myself to other people.

Unfortunately for me, old habits die harder than new ones. That being said, the first thing I did while viewing my peers work for the class was compare mine to theirs.

Yeah, I know. I should practice what I preach.