I truly love video games. I can say this after having completed the 30 hours worth of gameplay required to beat Yakuza 3 on Easy mode (which is apparently only 34% of the game completion). I remember getting my very first Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) when I was young. I was out of the classified ads in the paper, and it came with a strange japanese cartridge that contained 101 of the most important games of the time. I played everything, all the classics.
I have since owned pretty much every system to come out, including Sega Genesis, Super NES, N64, Gamecube, PS2, PS3, Nintendo Wii, and Xbox, and Xbox 360. I remember these days fondly, and have many memories of many great games. I don't want this post to just be about what I like, so I'll get to my point. With the increased technology, availability, and variety in games available, I believe that video games are becoming so common a form of media, that they will rival movies in popularity.
We have already seen advertisements in theatres for up and coming games. Gears of War had an amazing trailer for the big screen. Also, as a fairly recent development, it is becoming common to see product placement in games. It's the reason why I still prefer 5 Gum; it's the Spiderman Game Gum. In any case, I think that the Wii especially has moved the video game industry into a much larger target market. My grandmother plays tennis on the Wii, and the vampires of True Blood play golf. Everyone can find a game they like, and join the world of gamers.
I do believe that the rating system is important. Just like the movies, a rating board that does not make money based on what the ratings are, is a concerned third party that allows others to be better informed. I guess the main point here is that I have 2 opinions: 1) All children should have access to at least one kind of video game system, and 2) All video games played should be monitored by parents. It is at a point where not having video games will be like not having movies, or internet. It will be robbing your child of something that there is really very little reason to rob them of. Like movies, as long as the content is monitored, there is only enjoyment to be had.
I could go into the details of how some people think video games make kids violent, but that's not my point. I just wanted to share my strong opinion that in the near future, every child should have access to video games of some sort, the same way children should have access to movies. They are so much fun, and are even more social than watching a movie with friends; there is talking and joking while playing in most cases. In fact, there are some important things that can be learned from video games that can't be learned anywhere else.... like which weapons work best against zombies. You really don't know until you try.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Category That Attempts To Simplify Things
I was watching Oprah recently (actually not my first choice, but my girlfriend loves it) and I noticed that a lot of things that Oprah loves are single sentences that express a certain philosophy or view about life. I probably noticed because I love to do this too. For some reason, the idea of using such finite pieces of wisdom to understand the vast infinite complexities of reality and existence is superbly appealing. There are a number of reasons, one of which being memory and application, and the other being placement of self in the grand scheme.
There have been several moments in my life where my dad changed my life with a simple piece of logic. I watched a scary movie, was scared to go to bed, and he asked, "You think that because you watched that movie, that exact same thing is NOW going to happen to you in this house?" It seemed ridiculous to think that 10 or 12 years had gone by without a hitch, and now I expect aliens to come blast me into oblivion while I sleep. I was at a dance, too shy to dance where any girls were going to see, and my dad (a chaperone for this particular grade 6 dance) reminded me, "You love to dance!" and suddenly that was all that mattered. When people ask me my life philosophy, I tell them the 2 commandments of Jesus, and a single line from "Bear Neccessities". I focus on the tidbits, and turn them into universal truths.
For one thing, these small phrases are easy to remember. I recall reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, which is an amazing piece of writing that I highly recommend, even to non-christians, and felt that his arguments were logical and compelling. However, every point he drove home seemed to span at least 3 pages, and after completing the book, I felt hard pressed to repeat the ideas that were shared. It was too much, and too detailed; summarizing felt like I left too much out. It may have been complete, but because it was not conscise, I could not use it easily with others. When you have a singular phrase you can apply, you can make it fit, use it as a guideline in decision making, and sort of shape the finite into the infinite possibilites it needs to have. In this way, the finite becomes useful for the infinite. Sort of like a category...
Another great reason to use simple, one-line phrases, is that it allows you to find a place in the world. It is so communicable, and often easy for people to see the immediate merit of the statement, that you can feel connected and understood. By associating yourself with a concept, you accept a sort of title, and this really helps in understanding the infinite complexities of the self. It helps to categorize one's own being, and by feeling like you have a good idea of where you stand, you can see things around you much more clearly.
I think these are the reasons that little sentiments come about. People understand the staying power of these phrases, and so they devlop and get shared. I love them, and I bet that most people have one or two that they love as well... like, "It's better to have loved and lost, even if you lost it to zombification."
There have been several moments in my life where my dad changed my life with a simple piece of logic. I watched a scary movie, was scared to go to bed, and he asked, "You think that because you watched that movie, that exact same thing is NOW going to happen to you in this house?" It seemed ridiculous to think that 10 or 12 years had gone by without a hitch, and now I expect aliens to come blast me into oblivion while I sleep. I was at a dance, too shy to dance where any girls were going to see, and my dad (a chaperone for this particular grade 6 dance) reminded me, "You love to dance!" and suddenly that was all that mattered. When people ask me my life philosophy, I tell them the 2 commandments of Jesus, and a single line from "Bear Neccessities". I focus on the tidbits, and turn them into universal truths.
For one thing, these small phrases are easy to remember. I recall reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, which is an amazing piece of writing that I highly recommend, even to non-christians, and felt that his arguments were logical and compelling. However, every point he drove home seemed to span at least 3 pages, and after completing the book, I felt hard pressed to repeat the ideas that were shared. It was too much, and too detailed; summarizing felt like I left too much out. It may have been complete, but because it was not conscise, I could not use it easily with others. When you have a singular phrase you can apply, you can make it fit, use it as a guideline in decision making, and sort of shape the finite into the infinite possibilites it needs to have. In this way, the finite becomes useful for the infinite. Sort of like a category...
Another great reason to use simple, one-line phrases, is that it allows you to find a place in the world. It is so communicable, and often easy for people to see the immediate merit of the statement, that you can feel connected and understood. By associating yourself with a concept, you accept a sort of title, and this really helps in understanding the infinite complexities of the self. It helps to categorize one's own being, and by feeling like you have a good idea of where you stand, you can see things around you much more clearly.
I think these are the reasons that little sentiments come about. People understand the staying power of these phrases, and so they devlop and get shared. I love them, and I bet that most people have one or two that they love as well... like, "It's better to have loved and lost, even if you lost it to zombification."
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Category of Feeling Good vs. Looking Good
I am sitting at my girlfriend's house writing this blog, thinking about people's feelings compared to their body image. I suppose this may be another blog that is not an opinion, but a thought meant to get you thinking yourself. I consider myself to be a confident guy with good self-esteem. I am pleased with many facets of my personality, and believe in my own self worth. I also know that I am not unattractive, generally falling into the "cute" category, or "handsome" when you talk to older people. I am happy with myself, and if the odd person doesn't like how I dress, wear my hair, or whatever, I don't mind. What is interesting is where I seem to draw that line, which I am sure is not unusual in people; it's when I take my shirt off.
When I was young, maybe 8 or so, I used to go around my house without a shirt on. It was comfy, and I loved it. As I got older, I didn't want to make my growing sisters uncomfortable, and so I started wearing a shirt all the time. Mind you, bed time was okay, and I slept without a shirt, but during the day, at the table, hanging with my sisters, I went fully clothed. In my teenage years, despite the fact that I was in excellent shape, being quite muscular from martial arts, I kept my shirt on except when swimming or sleeping. It became normal to wear a shirt, though I always made the choice.
This year, after not working out very hard for a long time, I have gained weight. Having gained weight, I have discovered that I hate taking my shirt off except when completely alone. I will take off my shirt to climb into my bed and get under the covers. The point is I am experiencing a strange dissatisfaction with my body, and I am acting differently because of it. What I am trying to figure out is whether or not this can be a healthy motivator, or if I'm going to deal with it in a "positive attitude" mentality.
I know that many obese people learn to love themselves as they are. They suffer depression based on hating their bodies, and because of this, are encouraged to love themselves. However, obesity can lead to so many terrible health complications, it's strange that they are not encouraged to try and get healthier. You don't tell someone with a gaping wound to love themselves despite the pain and infection, but rather, you get them to a hospital, or at least disinfect the thing. Perhaps I should be feeling some dissatisfaction towards my weight, and use that to encourage me to move out of the "risk of diabetes" bracket I have fallen into. I suppose I want to say I believe in positive attitude and self-love, but it is also important to not use that as a reason (or demotivator) to not work towards better health.
I am certain that I will get back into shape; thanks to the information my girlfriend shares about healthy eating, and her motivation to help me care more about my health than the pleasures of cheeseburgers all the time, I am getting there. Plus I'm young, so hopefully I have lots of time if I start now, if not slowly. I think it is "okay" to be overweight in terms of self-worth, but it is not "okay" to decide you are going to just live that way. If the information I have gathered is correct, most obese people get diabetes, and diabetes puts the largest strain on North American healthcare.
Besides, anyone who has seen Zombieland knows that one of the rules of survival that is right at the top; Cardio.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Category of Excuses Part 2: Love
I am an advocate of love. As you may have read from my previous posts, I love Valentine's Day because it is a celebration of love. I think people who do not think love is amazing are those who do not have it, or fear they will never get it. Those who have been hurt by it may also be jaded, but those with it swear there is nothing better. I believe that love can happen between so many different people, and it is such a positive thing to have in life. Now that I have premised what I'm saying with this, I can get into something that angers me.
I feel like some people use love as an excuse to do bad things to other people. I'll shamefully admit that on the Bachelorette tonight, one of the final three guys admitted that he was breaking things off with her because he was in love with an ex. So many marriages end because one person is so in love with someone else they can't be apart. This always makes me feel sick, especially as someone who believes love is so strong and important. This is because everyone is kind of expected to understand.
When people say that they are doing something to someone because of "love" they are basically playing on the idea that love is above all other things. They believe that "true love" is more important than the vows of marriage, the less powerful love of someone you've been with so long. They think that because people generally see love as being so important, that no one can say, "You should ignore love, and do what would be more responsible." Frankly, I think in many situations, this is actually the case; love is not above all else. In most of these examples, the other person getting hurt also feels love, and apparently their love does not matter.
Love is something absolutely wonderful, but it is not a right. Love is something you can try and achieve, but it is not something that wipes away other people or other commitments. It tarnishes the concept of love when it is used to hurt someone, or to be selfish. To top it off, using it as an excuse because you think people understand how powerful love is supposed to be is really awful. These people should really come out and just say, "I matter more, and frankly if I can be happy, I don't mind that you are going to suffer, at least not enough to do anything about it." Love does not tie your hands, in my opinion. Love does not excuse every wrong. Love would not excuse murder, or physical abuse, but people are expected to buy that it justifies emotional trauma. This always makes me feel sick.
Love is a wonderful thing, and you should look for it wherever you can find it. People should get love when they have the chance, and should accept that they may not be allowed to have it sometimes. Love is often glorified in art and poems, and media, but it does not mean that nothing else matters, really. Life is complex, full of ups and downs, and love is there, and sometimes isn't.
"Honey, I'm sorry. I know we're married, but I'm in love with zombies, and I just want to be with them." .... Not cool.
The Category of Misunderstanding Qualities in Oneself
Having talked to some people about their personal attempt to better themselves, I have discovered an issue that I think must be somewhat common. A lot of times people identify a quality that they do not like in other people, and make a real try at making sure they do not have it. However, in their attempt to achieve their personal goal, they end up taking it too far, and suffer because of it. I don't really know how to describe the problem better than that, and will have to just give you some examples.
I have a friend who is very concerned with people being self centered, and being too much of a consumer. They admit to feeling guilt when they buy expensive make-up, clothes, food, etc. and they feel like people should be aware of the effects they are having on the environment and on the effects of media on themselves. However, in a discussion I had with them, they told me about a time when they "let loose" and allowed their hedonistic side to take over. I stopped them, and had to correct them. I told them that in their attempt to avoid being hedonistic, they stopped appreciating their self worth. They felt guilty for dressing up, wearing makeup, and generally looking good enough for people to notice. I told them there is nothing wrong with wanting to be looked upon as valuable, as respectable, and feeling good about who you are and how you look. You don't have a "hedonistic side"; hedonism is a way of life, and one that is totally self centered. You can't use such an extreme vocabulary to talk about this situation; it'd be like saying you were drowning yourself when you actually just had a glass of water. There was no reason to feel guilty.
A second example was a close friend of mine who has always been afraid of the dangers of pride. They feel that pride is something so dangerous to a person, and it is better to be humble, or modest. However, having talked to her more, I felt as if she was not giving herself enough credit. She was so nervous about having pride, that she did not like to acknowledge her best qualities. She, in my opinion, risked losing her self worth, by not allowing herself to admit she has some good things about her that other people do not. I'm not saying she should think she is a better person than everyone else, but it is important to be able to identify what you believe is right and wrong, and when you are doing something good, and someone else is not. It is important to be fair and not have too much pride, but it is also important to be aware of your value, and know that you are living up to what you believe is good and right, when other people aren't.
I'm sure that many people, including myself, do this. We try to be a certain way, and in doing so, go to far with it. Some people believe that the reason society is so concerned with political correctness is because we no longer want to be the ignorant, racist, sexist jerks we used to be. In this attempt to make it right, we censor ourselves too much, just to be sure. Finding a balance is hard, especially when the exact "right" is not obvious. I don't really have a comment on this issue, I guess I just noticed it and think it's a real doozie.
I mean I think that I don't want to die in the Zombie outbreak, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop every sick person I see from biting me if they want to. Wait, bad example.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Category of Using Diseases as Excuses
I think the title of this entry is a little more negative sounding than I mean it to. I just wanted to point out something I have seen in people, including myself, that I have not totally decided my opinion of. I've seen it a lot, and have had ample time to consider my position, but I can't quite conclude it. This is the issue of people with certain medical conditions that they have been properly diagnosed with, using their issue to some sort of benefit, specifically when it is not actually caused by the disease. I have two specific examples I think of, and these two explain my problem deciding my stance.
A friend of mine that I hung out with a couple years ago had some sort of learning disability, or mental dysfunction, that was really limited in its scope. What I mean was, he admitted that although some people have a far worse version of what he has, his is more of an annoyance or inconvenience than an actual issue that really affects his life. However, because of the understanding of his disorder by the medical community as serious, he applied for and received several special allowances in university. He gets copies of notes from other students who volunteer to make copies of their notes for people who have a harder time. He gets more time for tests, and even special conditions under which he can take them. He told me that he doesn't need any of this stuff at all, but he figures his issue may as well be good for something, and he uses it to excel in university. Frankly I don't want to condemn him as a cheater; I don't know if perhaps he actually would have a harder time. I feel like he has a point, and if he has to have this problem, he may as well make use of what small benefits it provides.
For the other example, I use myself. I was diagnosed with asthma when I was 6 years old, and have become short winded quickly, and may suffer asthma attacks which are very scary. Now sometimes this can be very serious, but other times I am fine and I know it. Other people do not. I have used my asthma as a reason to try less hard, or succeed less in gym classes. I have actually used my asthma to get more time to catch my breath at a Tae Kwon Do tournament, and even was allowed to pause and drink water! This is unheard of in a competition, and I have trained to fight when having an asthma attack; I didn't really NEED a drink. What I figure is if I have to live my life with a problem that will on occasion rob me of my ability to breathe, I might as well use it to get a drink or a break now and then. It seems like side by side, it's an obvious trade.
The problem is I always feel bad when I do this. I feel like I'm using a cop-out, and that I'm being unfair to people around me, getting an advantage I don't really need. I suppose it is the difference between seeing the situations one at a time, or considering the big picture that is our life. The conflict lies in that it sounds like it makes sense, but it feels wrong. Tough to figure out, feeling guilty about trying to make something unfortunate more fortunate. I haven't decided, just wanted to share my two sides.
But don't come crying to me that zombies are eating your ankles; I'm sure you can actually run just fine.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Category of Communication Outside Language
As a poet, and english major, I am sometimes very interested in the ways humans communicate outside of language. Obviously language used between those who speak it will be a much more clear, and straightforward, or at least descriptive, way to talk to each other, there are times when it is not an option. I have often thought to myself about the incredible power that words can have over people, especially said by the right people. A loved one insulting you, a comedian telling an extremely graphic joke, a horror novel building suspense just right. All examples of how language is used to affect others. However, when we do not understand the language being used, it is utterly powerless. Then there are the ways we "talk" outside language, and these don't carry power, they are simply tools used, in many cases.
I think first about universally recognized sounds that take the place of words. Laughter is an obvious one, but that isn't even really controllable. I think about the sounds, "Mmmmm" and "Mhmm", or "Meh". These I'm sure you can immediately identify and would most likely use them yourself. These sounds are all borne of natural human responses, but some, like the "Mmmm" are ingrained from society. A scream, a spit, a sniff. All communicate to people, despite any language barriers that may exist between them.
Another form is signing, unofficially. Sign language is not so commonly known, but certain gestures are obvious. A pointed finger, a tongue licking lips (which could mean more than one thing), a pinching of the nose with a frown. Again, people of other cultures can figure out what you are trying to say through these humanly actions that connect us all. It is really very interesting how much these can be used, as well as being aware of their limitations. I remember a time when I was in South Korea and met 3 very kind gentlemen.
My father had gone out with the grand master to visit some friends, leaving me to spend the evening alone in this small town. I walked down to a small, family owned pizza shop seeking food. I walked in, and half the place was a restaurant, but the other half was couches and chairs around a dining table. Sitting there were three middle-aged men. I looked at the menu board for a few seconds, unable to identify a single topping on any of the pizzas displayed. Feeling quite unable to proceed, I turned to leave. One of the men called out to me in a sort of "Enh!" sound, getting my attention. I turned, and he waved his hand towards himself, inviting me to join them. It became apparent that not one of them spoke a word of English. They handed me a shot glass and poured me some soju.
For the next 10 minutes we sat, smiling, trying our best to converse. I explained to them I was here with my father, and that I did Tae Kwon Do. They explained this was one of the men's family pizza shop. I told them I was from Canada, showing them a flag to explain. Eventually the owner's 14 year old son came in, who knew some English from school. He helped translate for about an hour, where we tried to fill in all the gaps in understanding through gestures. It was a fascinating conversation. They eventually gave me a free large pizza and 2 litre bottle of Pepsi as a gift, and somehow I managed to get just pepperoni.
As someone used to conversing exclusively in english, it was amazing to see how much I could do without it. The company of those men, the feelings of spending time with new friends and interesting people was enough. I wouldn't be surprised if I could dine with a famous person from history that spoke no English, and still gather much about them and their life. English will always be the language I love most, and wish to use as well as possible. It is nice to know however that without it, I am not totally impotent, and that the humanity we all share connects us in a way we all understand fundamentally. This is what truly separates us from the zombies.
I think first about universally recognized sounds that take the place of words. Laughter is an obvious one, but that isn't even really controllable. I think about the sounds, "Mmmmm" and "Mhmm", or "Meh". These I'm sure you can immediately identify and would most likely use them yourself. These sounds are all borne of natural human responses, but some, like the "Mmmm" are ingrained from society. A scream, a spit, a sniff. All communicate to people, despite any language barriers that may exist between them.
Another form is signing, unofficially. Sign language is not so commonly known, but certain gestures are obvious. A pointed finger, a tongue licking lips (which could mean more than one thing), a pinching of the nose with a frown. Again, people of other cultures can figure out what you are trying to say through these humanly actions that connect us all. It is really very interesting how much these can be used, as well as being aware of their limitations. I remember a time when I was in South Korea and met 3 very kind gentlemen.
My father had gone out with the grand master to visit some friends, leaving me to spend the evening alone in this small town. I walked down to a small, family owned pizza shop seeking food. I walked in, and half the place was a restaurant, but the other half was couches and chairs around a dining table. Sitting there were three middle-aged men. I looked at the menu board for a few seconds, unable to identify a single topping on any of the pizzas displayed. Feeling quite unable to proceed, I turned to leave. One of the men called out to me in a sort of "Enh!" sound, getting my attention. I turned, and he waved his hand towards himself, inviting me to join them. It became apparent that not one of them spoke a word of English. They handed me a shot glass and poured me some soju.
For the next 10 minutes we sat, smiling, trying our best to converse. I explained to them I was here with my father, and that I did Tae Kwon Do. They explained this was one of the men's family pizza shop. I told them I was from Canada, showing them a flag to explain. Eventually the owner's 14 year old son came in, who knew some English from school. He helped translate for about an hour, where we tried to fill in all the gaps in understanding through gestures. It was a fascinating conversation. They eventually gave me a free large pizza and 2 litre bottle of Pepsi as a gift, and somehow I managed to get just pepperoni.
As someone used to conversing exclusively in english, it was amazing to see how much I could do without it. The company of those men, the feelings of spending time with new friends and interesting people was enough. I wouldn't be surprised if I could dine with a famous person from history that spoke no English, and still gather much about them and their life. English will always be the language I love most, and wish to use as well as possible. It is nice to know however that without it, I am not totally impotent, and that the humanity we all share connects us in a way we all understand fundamentally. This is what truly separates us from the zombies.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Categorizing Pet Names
I plan on having cats. Kittens to be exact, and two of them. I am not an animal person, never having really grown up around any. I have lived with dogs, and though I treat them well, they are a source of great anger and frustration. For some reason, cats calm me. I see a cat and I am immediately happier. I just love their expressions, mannerisms, personalities. I am also terribly allergic, though I plan to outgrow it through a long period of suffering. I may get hypoallergenic, but I also may get the allergy shot that lasts a month or something. Regardless I will have 2 cats.
I do not like pets with people names. Now, I actually don't mind it when it is named after someone, such as "Mozart" or "Morgan as in Morgan Freeman". However, if the name is said, I would always want the reference explained right off the bat. A dog named "Dave" not named after anyone is weird to me. I know dogs are alive, but they are not people... So I really do prefer names that are restricted to pets. A cat is pretty much the only thing I could name Green Lantern and not have it be totally strange. Maybe not the best name, but good enough and one I'll consider. I would like Vlad, Khayman, Captain (as in America), or even Link, or Sonic. Actually NES characters could be pretty sweet. I just know that despite the physical discomfort I'll have, the amount of joy it will bring will be more than any other type of animal could bring me. But naming it right is important. So important that I am already sure of my first two boys and girls names, but not of either cat. Time to get creative. Maybe get a grey one and call it Render?
In any case, I don't think Zombie is a good name for a cat. Cats are too cute, and zombies are too... well pick any quality of a zombie, and it's too that. In fact, cats may just be the opposite of zombies. Weird.
The Category of Being A Simple Complicated Person
It is strange to me, but sometimes I feel like I am a really easy person to get to know, and that I try to live simply. But there are other times when I feel like no one is like me, and somethings make me totally separate from anyone else I know. It is peculiar to me to be so sociable, yet feel so unlike anyone else around. I suppose everyone is unique, but sometimes the things that make me, me, have me feeling like I have the strangest things about me.
The ways that I am simple would be in my life philosophies, and my extroverted personality. My life philosophies can be summed up in 2 quotes: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might. You shall love your neighbour as yourself." is the first quote, from the Christian Bible obviously. The second is "If you find out you can live without it, and go along not thinking about it, I'll tell you something true; the bare necessities of life will come to you" which is from the Jungle Book. These are the statements that at this point in my life, guide me. They are my direction, and utterly my belief. Knowing this, means you know a lot about me.
I'm also pretty talkative, and as such, share a lot of my likes and dislikes. I may not share my opinions too strongly or readily, but if it feels safe then I like to share. In general I like answering any questions I am posed with, and so it is easy for people to know the things they wonder about me. I drive a motorcycle, I do Tae Kwon Do, I love zombies, I read/write poetry, I love D&D, I love superheroes and video games, I drink too much Coca-Cola, and so on. These are things my friends know immediately, but also things that many people learn about me right away. I am friendly, caring, interested in others' and their well being, I am generous; these are also things people can see right away.
There are some things that I feel are rare in people, and I have them. I feel most connected, and enjoy listening to, 80s New Wave. One Hit Wonders and things like that I love to death. Another musical aspect is that I like to sing. I sing to myself, I don't think I'm amazing, but I'll do it anywhere. At the mall, in my house, the car, even the bus with headphones on. I only sing when there is music on that I can hear, but I do it every time, and it's just how I enjoy music. No one I know sings that much. Until recently I didn't know anyone that loved zombies as much as I did. Not in a "study them to know everything" but rather a "play every game, see every movie, read every story" kinda way. I now know one person who feels the same, but I met him fairly recently in my life.
I feel alone in my religious beliefs. I feel like my understandings are so simple and feel so "right" (in terms of the important things) that I struggle to believe that there isn't an organization that holds all the same ideas. Why do I feel like I'm the only Catholic who believes in not judging others, in loving everyone, in following tradition to connect to God, and believes Hell is not something to actually fear. I believe in a God that wants everyone to love and be happy, and take whatever information they can get, and strive for this. How could any life be more satisfying? I understand other people having different beliefs, but I feel like I know no one who takes the most obvious, simple view. I feel there are no contradictions in my beliefs with such a strong, straight-forward foundation.
I had a bit of an identity crisis about a year ago. I began feeling like I could not control my own actions, could not make everyone happy, could not be myself and fit in anywhere completely. I fled to Calgary believing I would start over with new people, and would shape my life how I wanted it, taking care of myself. Doing this showed me how much my love for my friends, family, and especially love and respect for my girlfriend, meant to me. I learned to listen to people who care, who I trust are intelligent and may actually be right when I feel that I know better. I don't always know what's best for me, but that's ok when others want to look out for you. I want to be a better friend, be a better love, be a better worker, everything. And now I know to seek advice, and ask for help.
I am not like everyone else, and it's funny that I had to break down a bit to truly understand that it's okay. I am a firm believer in society and inclusion, and just getting along. I hope to share my strengths and benefit from others'. I want to be different, and be allowed to do and like what I want, while being a part of a loving group that makes up my life. The movie "Wit" with Emma Thompson taught me that there is nothing more important in life than being there for others, and having people around you. My life is lived only with the existence of my friends and family, and that is exactly the way I want to be. All I need is my select group of people.
And with them we can survive the zombie apocalypse. Hopefully.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Category of When to Share Your Opinions and Tact
I recently exploded a little bit on my girlfriend's, roommate's boyfriend over a sort of "last straw" situation. He is 18, so a bit younger, but obviously is not aware of the effect he is having on other members of the household. There are a couple qualities he currently has that makes his interaction with others somewhat strained. The first is that he is quite negative; pessimistic, cynical, dark, and just generally against many common things in society. This in itself may not be so bad, as many people live their lives with cynical outlooks, and depressing opinions, and they are of course entitled to them. The problem is his second quality, which is his stubborn need to share his opinions the moment they are relevant.
Now, again, some would say he has a right to voice his opinion, especially when someone else expresses one that differs from his. But let me give you an example. My girlfriend is a dancer, and as such, is in love with So You Think You Can Dance?, the show. She likes watching the talented dancers come together, try new styles, and basically earn their way up the competition ladder based on skill and ability. Now this roommate's boyfriend, does not like reality television. He is quite strongly of the opinion that it is bad to parade people in front of television audiences, and watch them struggle, suffer, and fail for our amusement. Clearly not an opinion I hold, but not an uncommon one by any means. The problem was he decided to express this ferverant feeling as soon as my girlfriend sat down to watch this show, and had expressed how excited she was for this episode.
In my opinion, this was a very mean way to share an opinion. The worst time to share it is when you are bringing someone else down who is happy. Even if you feel your opinion is truth, it is sometimes better to let people have their opinions, and just hold onto yours for another time. I will share another example, sort of. My good friend is quite passionate about music, to a point where he believes he is the ultimate judge of "good" and "bad" music. He believes with his background learning to play it, and his choice of music growing up, that he has the final say on quality. Needless to say, as a person who cannot understand many of the obscure songs that he, and a select group of others I have yet to meet one of, likes, I am often looked down upon for my tastes. He has determined the things that make or break a song, and many of the reasons I like music is totally different from him.
I don't really get into it with him. Not only do I know he can't see my points even if he really wanted to, but I know that he doesn't really like a conflict in which he feels the other person is just ignorant or uneducated. I understand that my basing my taste purely on "enjoyment" or "what sounds good" is not sufficient for him, and so he shuts me down right away. I don't really care, as I have learned this is just how he is, and frankly I don't feel strongly enough to argue anyway. Because of this he honestly believes I have terrible taste in music, and doesn't really know that I think his song choice is weird and boring, in many cases. It doesn't matter, because music is important to him, and not so much to me; I know when to keep my opinions to myself.
In any case, it is so important to only share opinions that you have at a time when you are not hurting anyone by saying it, needlessly anyway. Some people will be hurt at any time, and maybe these people don't need to know how you feel. Some people want to share their thoughts with everyone all the time, but maybe these people just require validation for their opinions. If you have your thoughts, and believe them, maybe consider sparing others things that they don't really want to hear. It may make the dynamic of the group more pleasant, and that's good for everyone.
The last thing you need is a meaningless argument that gets you no where with a group of people you are trusting your life to during the final times of mankind, as they fall to the hordes of zombies the earth is populated with.
Now, again, some would say he has a right to voice his opinion, especially when someone else expresses one that differs from his. But let me give you an example. My girlfriend is a dancer, and as such, is in love with So You Think You Can Dance?, the show. She likes watching the talented dancers come together, try new styles, and basically earn their way up the competition ladder based on skill and ability. Now this roommate's boyfriend, does not like reality television. He is quite strongly of the opinion that it is bad to parade people in front of television audiences, and watch them struggle, suffer, and fail for our amusement. Clearly not an opinion I hold, but not an uncommon one by any means. The problem was he decided to express this ferverant feeling as soon as my girlfriend sat down to watch this show, and had expressed how excited she was for this episode.
In my opinion, this was a very mean way to share an opinion. The worst time to share it is when you are bringing someone else down who is happy. Even if you feel your opinion is truth, it is sometimes better to let people have their opinions, and just hold onto yours for another time. I will share another example, sort of. My good friend is quite passionate about music, to a point where he believes he is the ultimate judge of "good" and "bad" music. He believes with his background learning to play it, and his choice of music growing up, that he has the final say on quality. Needless to say, as a person who cannot understand many of the obscure songs that he, and a select group of others I have yet to meet one of, likes, I am often looked down upon for my tastes. He has determined the things that make or break a song, and many of the reasons I like music is totally different from him.
I don't really get into it with him. Not only do I know he can't see my points even if he really wanted to, but I know that he doesn't really like a conflict in which he feels the other person is just ignorant or uneducated. I understand that my basing my taste purely on "enjoyment" or "what sounds good" is not sufficient for him, and so he shuts me down right away. I don't really care, as I have learned this is just how he is, and frankly I don't feel strongly enough to argue anyway. Because of this he honestly believes I have terrible taste in music, and doesn't really know that I think his song choice is weird and boring, in many cases. It doesn't matter, because music is important to him, and not so much to me; I know when to keep my opinions to myself.
In any case, it is so important to only share opinions that you have at a time when you are not hurting anyone by saying it, needlessly anyway. Some people will be hurt at any time, and maybe these people don't need to know how you feel. Some people want to share their thoughts with everyone all the time, but maybe these people just require validation for their opinions. If you have your thoughts, and believe them, maybe consider sparing others things that they don't really want to hear. It may make the dynamic of the group more pleasant, and that's good for everyone.
The last thing you need is a meaningless argument that gets you no where with a group of people you are trusting your life to during the final times of mankind, as they fall to the hordes of zombies the earth is populated with.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Category of Technology Taking Over All Our Lives
If you've ever seen the movie Walle, you may find it to be a heartwarming movie about some robots, and love, and "antics". What it is supposed to suggest as a sub-message, is the danger of relying on technology. People are in floating chairs, only talk via screens, and basically have no human contact. It is an image many people get the message from, and see it as an exaggeration of what it suggests life could be like. However, I do not see it that way. When I think about what it would take to bring people to that point, I see that we are on the path to ending up there. Allow me to explain my logic.
I like to explain this thought by describing the toothbrush, and the technology surrounding it. The standard, original, typical toothbrush is a plastic handle with bristles. It varies in colour, and varying lengths of bristles, but otherwise is standard. They are all used the same way; held in your hand, brushed back and forth. There is of course, a newer alternative, known as the electric toothbrush. This one uses electric power to significantly improve the cleaning capability, as well as reducing the muscle power required. It is basically an example of technology making something, not only easier in simple ways, but totally more effective.
This means that to willingly choose to use a standard toothbrush, you are choosing to work harder in order to do a less thorough job. This is the first danger of technology. Suppose the next step is a precision laser that detects your teeth, and destroys every bit of bacteria or dirt or whatever. To not use this laser will mean you will choose to continue to use your arm muscles with the electric toothbrush to do a less impressive job. Let me clarify my point; what technology aims to do is offer alternatives to older methods that are so effective, they remove any need to ever do it the old-fashioned way.
So if we assume that technology is moving in a direction that seems to encourage we rely more heavily on technology and stop letting humans get in the way of efficiency, we face the problem of being overwhelmed. "Well," you might be saying, "I'm sure humanity would never let it go that far!" But I would argue that we don't really have a choice, and here is why. Let's apply the same idea about improving efficiency and ease to the technology of cars. So next we have hover cars, and cars that drive themselves, and cars that communicate with each other so there are never auto collisions ever again. These people who made the cars have no connection with the people who made the laser toothbrush. What this means is that, because people creating technology are not one "big picture effect" kind of group, the rush to make better technology is not monitored. Everyone is developing their own thing, and our lives will become easier and more reliant one task at a time. We won't see ourselves getting to the point of danger, we'll already find ourselves sunk into it, like quicksand.
What else suggests to me that we could end up like the fat layabouts in Walle, is the amount that people going against technology and the system were beaten around by it. In the movie it was playful, but suppose that we develop an amazing technology that allows cars to move at incedible speeds with no risk of collision, BUT no human is allowed to set foot on a road because every hit could be fatal. Or suppose our technology is so wonderful we can teleport objects through the sky, but because of this, it is too dangerous to have airplanes in the sky anymore. What if the technology is so useful, it MUST be used, but we have to sacrifice areas of our world to accomodate it. It may become the case where not using technology is not only less efficient, but actually dangerous to your safety.
I suppose the saving grace will be in humanity's inability to share, and the inequality of living conditions throughout the world. Even if our tech improves drastically, the poor are still poor, and the third world countries rarely get tech for free. That could slow down the process. It is also possible that groups would form to raise awareness about this, people trying to monitor the rapid growth of our reliance on technology in order to preserve humanity. Or perhaps before we reach a critical point, someone will discover some terrible virus that will eat through humanity, putting a halt to all concerns of brushing our teeth, and force us to focus on survival...
I like to explain this thought by describing the toothbrush, and the technology surrounding it. The standard, original, typical toothbrush is a plastic handle with bristles. It varies in colour, and varying lengths of bristles, but otherwise is standard. They are all used the same way; held in your hand, brushed back and forth. There is of course, a newer alternative, known as the electric toothbrush. This one uses electric power to significantly improve the cleaning capability, as well as reducing the muscle power required. It is basically an example of technology making something, not only easier in simple ways, but totally more effective.
This means that to willingly choose to use a standard toothbrush, you are choosing to work harder in order to do a less thorough job. This is the first danger of technology. Suppose the next step is a precision laser that detects your teeth, and destroys every bit of bacteria or dirt or whatever. To not use this laser will mean you will choose to continue to use your arm muscles with the electric toothbrush to do a less impressive job. Let me clarify my point; what technology aims to do is offer alternatives to older methods that are so effective, they remove any need to ever do it the old-fashioned way.
So if we assume that technology is moving in a direction that seems to encourage we rely more heavily on technology and stop letting humans get in the way of efficiency, we face the problem of being overwhelmed. "Well," you might be saying, "I'm sure humanity would never let it go that far!" But I would argue that we don't really have a choice, and here is why. Let's apply the same idea about improving efficiency and ease to the technology of cars. So next we have hover cars, and cars that drive themselves, and cars that communicate with each other so there are never auto collisions ever again. These people who made the cars have no connection with the people who made the laser toothbrush. What this means is that, because people creating technology are not one "big picture effect" kind of group, the rush to make better technology is not monitored. Everyone is developing their own thing, and our lives will become easier and more reliant one task at a time. We won't see ourselves getting to the point of danger, we'll already find ourselves sunk into it, like quicksand.
What else suggests to me that we could end up like the fat layabouts in Walle, is the amount that people going against technology and the system were beaten around by it. In the movie it was playful, but suppose that we develop an amazing technology that allows cars to move at incedible speeds with no risk of collision, BUT no human is allowed to set foot on a road because every hit could be fatal. Or suppose our technology is so wonderful we can teleport objects through the sky, but because of this, it is too dangerous to have airplanes in the sky anymore. What if the technology is so useful, it MUST be used, but we have to sacrifice areas of our world to accomodate it. It may become the case where not using technology is not only less efficient, but actually dangerous to your safety.
I suppose the saving grace will be in humanity's inability to share, and the inequality of living conditions throughout the world. Even if our tech improves drastically, the poor are still poor, and the third world countries rarely get tech for free. That could slow down the process. It is also possible that groups would form to raise awareness about this, people trying to monitor the rapid growth of our reliance on technology in order to preserve humanity. Or perhaps before we reach a critical point, someone will discover some terrible virus that will eat through humanity, putting a halt to all concerns of brushing our teeth, and force us to focus on survival...
Monday, July 5, 2010
Zombies and How I Came to Love Them: The Category
Well, it strikes me as obvious to write about this, but I haven't yet, so here it is. I'd like to briefly discuss why it is that I love zombies so much. I don't really know where this passion came from, but I seemed to find one day that I was intrigued quite often whenever their mention came up. When I think about it, there are a few things that I like about them. First is the actual make-up of the zombie, then the concepts surrounding their existence, and finally the paradox. I'll elaborate as best I can.
First is the actual zombies themselves. For some reason I feel they truly are a monster in every sense of the word. They are unfeeling, unthinking, moving creatures of destruction and death. There is no way to reason with a zombie, and the fact that it looks like a messed up person makes it terrifying. You don't need scales, or a tail, or even claws and fangs to be scary... you need blood, rot, flesh wounds, and the fact that they don't stop it from coming. It is always part of a larger group, which makes them seem unavoidable, and they are difficult enough to take down, let alone the hundreds one can expect to encounter. They are the remenants of the dead, and of their own victims, and as such, there is a never ending supply. Their bite is always fatal.
I have never been someone who is a zombie "purist", and can't always understand why anyone would be. What I mean by this is that I am not someone who will say "that doesn't count as a zombie" when someone takes the concept in a new direction. I may have preferences as to what makes my favourite kind (see Dawn of the Dead remake) might be, but certain new ideas don't make me turn away in disgust. Marvel zombies have moments of clarity between meals, some zombies have thoughts though they can't talk. Some only eat brains, others the flesh of the living. Some eat animals, some don't. Some learn and adapt, some don't. Some mimic actions of their old lives, others shamble and eat. It doesn't matter really, and I applaud anyone suggesting a new spin on a beloved classic. I'm like that with many beloved classic things in life.
The second thing I like is the idea behind what the world would be like. The constant struggle for survival, the improvisation in dangerous situations, the need for teamwork, trust, planning, etc. What is so interesting is the ethics! I have always been a fan of ethics that really don't apply given the examples they use to be discussed. I loved "I, Robot" for the ethics around robots and their understanding or rights. I love zombies and the way survival changes, or ethics in any circumstance changes. Forget funerals and burials, you gotta shoot them in the head. Mass burning to kill the virus or whatever. Someone is bitten; wait til the turn, or put them out of their misery? What matters when society collapses? It is all interesting to consider, and fairly safe considering it most likely will never be an issue. Even thoughts of what kinds of weapons work best, when limited to every day items? All fascinating to consider and discuss.
The last aspect that I don't even understand is the fear. I love zombies, but only to think about or escape from. I would never have a poster of a zombie, because in my opinion, zombies are meant to be observed for no more than 5 seconds at one time, before you kill it or escape. They aren't beautiful, they are hideous. I say I like them, but I would never suggest they are "good" or that I would be excited if they were around. To be honest, they are the scariest monster I know. More than vampires, more than werewolves. Once a zombie outbreak starts, the entire world is in jeopardy. They are that serious. Sometimes when I am alone, or in different places, I imagine what I would do if an outbreak suddenly happened; where would I go, what would I use, and so on. Every time, I creep myself out, and am glad it isn't real. I have actually had multiple terrifying nightmares about zombies, and I know it is because I flood my mind with them. I literally introduce fear into my life because of my fascination with zombies. This is the paradox of my love for them.
To end this post about zombies, and to stick to my tradition, let me leave with this parting sentiment.
Zombies. :D
First is the actual zombies themselves. For some reason I feel they truly are a monster in every sense of the word. They are unfeeling, unthinking, moving creatures of destruction and death. There is no way to reason with a zombie, and the fact that it looks like a messed up person makes it terrifying. You don't need scales, or a tail, or even claws and fangs to be scary... you need blood, rot, flesh wounds, and the fact that they don't stop it from coming. It is always part of a larger group, which makes them seem unavoidable, and they are difficult enough to take down, let alone the hundreds one can expect to encounter. They are the remenants of the dead, and of their own victims, and as such, there is a never ending supply. Their bite is always fatal.
I have never been someone who is a zombie "purist", and can't always understand why anyone would be. What I mean by this is that I am not someone who will say "that doesn't count as a zombie" when someone takes the concept in a new direction. I may have preferences as to what makes my favourite kind (see Dawn of the Dead remake) might be, but certain new ideas don't make me turn away in disgust. Marvel zombies have moments of clarity between meals, some zombies have thoughts though they can't talk. Some only eat brains, others the flesh of the living. Some eat animals, some don't. Some learn and adapt, some don't. Some mimic actions of their old lives, others shamble and eat. It doesn't matter really, and I applaud anyone suggesting a new spin on a beloved classic. I'm like that with many beloved classic things in life.
The second thing I like is the idea behind what the world would be like. The constant struggle for survival, the improvisation in dangerous situations, the need for teamwork, trust, planning, etc. What is so interesting is the ethics! I have always been a fan of ethics that really don't apply given the examples they use to be discussed. I loved "I, Robot" for the ethics around robots and their understanding or rights. I love zombies and the way survival changes, or ethics in any circumstance changes. Forget funerals and burials, you gotta shoot them in the head. Mass burning to kill the virus or whatever. Someone is bitten; wait til the turn, or put them out of their misery? What matters when society collapses? It is all interesting to consider, and fairly safe considering it most likely will never be an issue. Even thoughts of what kinds of weapons work best, when limited to every day items? All fascinating to consider and discuss.
The last aspect that I don't even understand is the fear. I love zombies, but only to think about or escape from. I would never have a poster of a zombie, because in my opinion, zombies are meant to be observed for no more than 5 seconds at one time, before you kill it or escape. They aren't beautiful, they are hideous. I say I like them, but I would never suggest they are "good" or that I would be excited if they were around. To be honest, they are the scariest monster I know. More than vampires, more than werewolves. Once a zombie outbreak starts, the entire world is in jeopardy. They are that serious. Sometimes when I am alone, or in different places, I imagine what I would do if an outbreak suddenly happened; where would I go, what would I use, and so on. Every time, I creep myself out, and am glad it isn't real. I have actually had multiple terrifying nightmares about zombies, and I know it is because I flood my mind with them. I literally introduce fear into my life because of my fascination with zombies. This is the paradox of my love for them.
To end this post about zombies, and to stick to my tradition, let me leave with this parting sentiment.
Zombies. :D
Friday, July 2, 2010
A Category of Fundamental Self Interest
There is a rather current philosophical view about human behaviour that theorizes that everything a person ever does, they only do out of self interest. Let me explain this somewhat cynical sounding view. It suggests that when a decision presents itself, people choose based on what they want or need. Even seemingly "selfless" acts are actually just internal self interest. A person might save someone from drowning because they want to be praised or looked upon well. It may even be that they simply wish to be "a good person" and so they act in an attempt to make themselves better. There are a couple of problems I have with this theory that I think should be clairified.
First off, I believe that it is possible that what this theory is pointing to, is not selfishness, but rather is defining understanding, and processing as a means to exist in life. To say that everything we do we actually do for ourselves may be misleading. It might be said instead that everything we do we actually do because we are ourselves. What I mean by this is that everyone (we assume) has what philosophers call "qualia". This is "the experience of being", and it is specific to anything that has it. According to Thomas Nagel, I cannot know what it is like to be a bat, really, because I have my own qualia, and not the bat's. What this idea means is that we all understand that we are seperate entities from the world around us. There is an aspect to us that is quite individual, that no one else really has. It can be said that this "qualia" is internal; some call it an aspect of the mind, others, an aspect of the soul. Regardless, it is fairly commonly agreed upon that I am not you, and you are not me, and because this is the case, there will be things I experience that you will not.
Now the point I am trying to make is that everyone has an experience of life. We exist, and our bodies are basically giant receptors for the constant data our senses detect. We are a biological machine that is designed to take in information. With this information we seek to underdstand it, classify it, and put it to some sort of appropriate use. In this way, we function. Now, supposing that everyone does have an internal experience that no one else shares, it may be safe to say that we all make our own decisions based on what we have (namely the qualia and the input received). I would theorize that it is possible some confuse this very personal understanding of how we experience the world, and personally respond within it, as being an attempt at self gain. It could be simply that "acting in self interest" is more "acting as an individual will given their qualia and specific input". We are not our peers, and as such cannot truly act on their behalf.
A friend of mine that I discussed this with suggested that selflessness may not even be the great moral achievement it is often made out to be. I think on one hand he may be right, also in his claim that it is not possible with the current definition of it. It may actually just describe something functionally impossible, and as such, can have no good/bad value attached. What I also think is that there is a form of selflessness that need not be questioned. I have no doubt that some people react to situations that do not directly benefit them in order to increase benefit to someone else. What is really important about this suggestion is motive, because it cannot be said that ANYTHING that provides a benefit must be selfish. If I am going to gain a benefit from helping someone else, and I can neither help that fact, or do not consciously ponder my desire for that benefit, I believe an act is selfless. The existence of personal gain does not negate selflessness, it really only gets in the way if it is the motivation behind the action. I would not attribute a subconscious desire to a lack of care for others.
This is a highly debated concept, and one I think is often misused by people defending it. I do think that some assumptions are made about the claims that do not follow necessarily from the premises involved. However, this remains a philosophical topic I quite enjoy. In case you hadn't already guessed, I also love the philosophical theories involving qualia. It may have something to do with the fact that, in academic philosophical theory, a being that is functionally like a human but lacks qualia is referred to as a "zombie". Not making that up.
First off, I believe that it is possible that what this theory is pointing to, is not selfishness, but rather is defining understanding, and processing as a means to exist in life. To say that everything we do we actually do for ourselves may be misleading. It might be said instead that everything we do we actually do because we are ourselves. What I mean by this is that everyone (we assume) has what philosophers call "qualia". This is "the experience of being", and it is specific to anything that has it. According to Thomas Nagel, I cannot know what it is like to be a bat, really, because I have my own qualia, and not the bat's. What this idea means is that we all understand that we are seperate entities from the world around us. There is an aspect to us that is quite individual, that no one else really has. It can be said that this "qualia" is internal; some call it an aspect of the mind, others, an aspect of the soul. Regardless, it is fairly commonly agreed upon that I am not you, and you are not me, and because this is the case, there will be things I experience that you will not.
Now the point I am trying to make is that everyone has an experience of life. We exist, and our bodies are basically giant receptors for the constant data our senses detect. We are a biological machine that is designed to take in information. With this information we seek to underdstand it, classify it, and put it to some sort of appropriate use. In this way, we function. Now, supposing that everyone does have an internal experience that no one else shares, it may be safe to say that we all make our own decisions based on what we have (namely the qualia and the input received). I would theorize that it is possible some confuse this very personal understanding of how we experience the world, and personally respond within it, as being an attempt at self gain. It could be simply that "acting in self interest" is more "acting as an individual will given their qualia and specific input". We are not our peers, and as such cannot truly act on their behalf.
A friend of mine that I discussed this with suggested that selflessness may not even be the great moral achievement it is often made out to be. I think on one hand he may be right, also in his claim that it is not possible with the current definition of it. It may actually just describe something functionally impossible, and as such, can have no good/bad value attached. What I also think is that there is a form of selflessness that need not be questioned. I have no doubt that some people react to situations that do not directly benefit them in order to increase benefit to someone else. What is really important about this suggestion is motive, because it cannot be said that ANYTHING that provides a benefit must be selfish. If I am going to gain a benefit from helping someone else, and I can neither help that fact, or do not consciously ponder my desire for that benefit, I believe an act is selfless. The existence of personal gain does not negate selflessness, it really only gets in the way if it is the motivation behind the action. I would not attribute a subconscious desire to a lack of care for others.
This is a highly debated concept, and one I think is often misused by people defending it. I do think that some assumptions are made about the claims that do not follow necessarily from the premises involved. However, this remains a philosophical topic I quite enjoy. In case you hadn't already guessed, I also love the philosophical theories involving qualia. It may have something to do with the fact that, in academic philosophical theory, a being that is functionally like a human but lacks qualia is referred to as a "zombie". Not making that up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)