Inner Peace

Some things annoy me a lot. Those Buddhist "inner peace" types are amongst the sorts that truly peeve me. Now, I am not against things like finding one's inner peace. It is a worthy pursuit, and I am (in a manner of speaking) at peace with myself and what I am. It is when one externalizes one's "inner peace" in a way that shows it as false that I start foaming at the mouth.

Take for example the semi-smug "wise man" who acts like an enlightened Buddhist type who confidently preaches about one's true nature as if he knows how one will be in the future. Indeed it may be true for the general case, and I believe he means well, but ultimately one never does know what another's life path will be like. If anything, it is condescending to think that others would follow the same path that one has trodden and will come to the same conclusions. Worse yet, it implies that the path is in some way more correct than others.

Interestingly, I come out of these engagements feeling that the person was in fact more naive and rather unenlightened. It is ironic, considering what their views are. Of course, there will be some who view my seemingly warlike ways as a form of inner conflict that is created rather than natural, but those who can only comprehend conventional wisdom in these forms will never truly understand what it is like to have order in chaos.

Sense Of Belonging

I think people are only capable of understanding the world on their own terms. By that logic, it is condescending for someone to think they understand how other people feel just because they had similar experiences: There may be a normal, general case, but one's experiences are unique to oneself. No two snowflakes are identical, so to speak.

I had a conversation with a friend concerning the matter of a sense of belonging. He's been around, but ultimately came home because home was the only place he felt like he truly belonged. It is an intriguing idea, of course, that one has a place that one feels rooted to and wishes to return to. Of course, it irks me that he thinks I would feel the same if I were to do it as well.

Of course, I have not (though I plan to) and I intend to shortly. It will be a nice new experience, whatever the outcome. However, I am skeptical as to whether I would miss home, because I have no concept for home. For me, home is wherever I happen to be. In fact, oddly enough, I actually feel momentarily lost when I get "home" from overseas simply because I find that I have habituated to the new surroundings. Sadly, there is no way for me to definitively answer that assertion of his because I have not crossed the bridge and know not what lies on the other end. It will be an interesting note for posterity however.

Challenge Accepted

This will be yet another of those rants about the low-brow human who is easily impressed. This is the case of the challenge, and how to back off from one. Now, challenges are annoying things. It is exceedingly easy for one to issue a challenge, but rather difficult to back off from one without looking like a pansy.

Take for example a stupid challenge: I assert that I do not fear death. The challenger retorts that if that were true, I should prove it. Clearly, this is a nonsensical challenge and one should be able to deny it without consequence. It means nothing one way or another. Yet, how can one deny such a challenge at all? It questions one's resolve about a statement one has made about oneself, and to deny the challenge offhand might as well be a retraction of that statement. What a loss! It also creates an opening for the challenger to smugly declare the statement to be false (which would, of course, attract a punch to the face for good measure).

A double dare in this case would be overly glib and can be easily brushed off as an attempt at changing the subject as the challenger has nothing to defend. In fact, it is this position that is particularly galling, because it is possible to issue a challenge on such unequal terms. Of course, there will be those who say that it would have been better not to make the statement in the first place, or my father's belief that to win a fight is to lose one.

My take is that there is no graceful way out of it, and trying to worm one's way out is not only the action of a pansy but can attract jeering by the challenger's peers. The most efficient way I've found so far tends to involve a quick attack of some form, be it a sudden outburst, an assault that ends with the challenger's face ground into the dirt or a double dare and a very stern disposition against any further attempt at a reversal. Hostility and a nasty disposition have their own charm when it comes to diffusing such annoyances.

Mall Layouts

Shopping malls are particularly interesting business venues. They are seemingly illogical setups where competitors cheerfully clump together to compete for attention in a highly competitive situation. Of course, this store clustering makes things convenient for the consumers, who throng the venue in response.

One would think that with the sheer number of malls created, people would have made a science out of mall design. Well, from the looks of the malls around here, I think they're rather far from it. Mall shoppers are like sheep. They flock, and only go where they can see. Unless the mall specializes in the sort of cramped fire trap layout of the mini stall maze, they need to do more to draw traffic.

Showy facades are a part of the puzzle, but I've found that the biggest omission common to poorly trafficked malls tend to be deep dark recesses that none but the most determined explorers would miss. The stalls that succeed are largely limited to what the consumers can see, and that is where a well laid out atrium really shines: It allows customers to see the shops (and have an idea of where they're going) and for them to see where the crowds are going so that they can follow. Once that flow is achieved, the malls seem to largely self sustain. Yet, I routinely see really bad atria, which serve only to make people wonder what's out there...and then the consumers forget and wander off to the next most accessible mall...

Why Do You Like This?

I think it can be an exercise in futility to ask people why they are the way they are. Like asking questions about why you like steak and not lamb chops? I've tried asking such questions before, and the responses I get range from the inane to the outright evasive. It is not uncommon for me to get a variety of turn around like "but why do YOU like lamb chops but not steak?". (No, the steak vs lamb chops isn't a real discussion here). I just think it's a silly bit of rhetoric used by the unawakened humans who are disinclined to think more about what really drives them.

I especially hate the turnaround approach, because it's not just an evasion but it's pretty much a rhetorical question. The other person isn't actually interested in whatever response I may give, and it simply opens the opportunity for them to wiggle out of it by saying that they think the same. On my end, I am actually interested in a serious response, and all I get are these cheap responses.

It is this sort of response that only serves to cement my belief that the average human barely qualifies the title, and is hardly better than an animal. Once in a while, though, someone actually sits down and thinks seriously about the question. It is refreshing to see it happen, but frankly...I've never had much faith in humanity, and there are few things that I have encountered that convinced me otherwise. C'est la vie.

On The Psychopath

I think it is a funny thing that when someone mentions the "disorder", they think of the low functioning variety of psychopath. Of course it's a pathology if someone winds up like Ted Bundy, and is quite unable to operate properly in society. That's kinda the definition of a pathology in that sense. But today I am considering the matter of that and morality:

There seems to be a really big deal being made about psychopaths being immoral monsters who do as they please. But when I read the arguments out there, I often find that it simply boils down to people having some weird sort of emotive understanding of morality. In general, I take issue with the definition of a person as broken just because they think differently from the mainstream. Something like people limiting behaviors simply because someone else didn't like it done to them. Yet, we are quite aware that the golden rule can only be taken so far. In the matter of victimless crimes, I actually find the emotive take to be dangerous.

Of course, I have wound up somewhat conflating morality with legality, and then there's the separate matter of ethics. I don't think they are all equivalent (they aren't), but I do find that legality is often influenced by popular morality. And of course, it is annoying. If I were to break a law because I figure it's the right thing to do, I do not expect to be punished for it. That's pretty lame.

I disagree that there can be no morality without the emotive component. In fact, I think it would be improved if people can just be more logical about their means towards their ends. Sadly, of course, I know the average person is just incapable of shutting those emotions swimming about their heads, and the calls will be quite different from what is logically optimal.

Those Infantile Women

Some things annoy me. Women acting infantile is one of them. Now, it's not that I don't understand the applications of the behavior and the potential reward from adopting it. I'm just annoyed that the behavior's exploitative and does not serve to better the lot of women at all. It's also inconsistent with the general image that women wish to project, being more emotionally mature than equivalent men.

Now, I do not like it when people act submissive. Being infantile, acting childlike and especially like a spoilt child does work at getting what one wants. However, it reinforces the image of the submissive woman (who is unable to engage a man on adult to adult terms) and creates expectations of others to do the same. As a whole, it harms everyone. Men are being manipulated in this way, and whether they realize it and welcome it or despise it, they're going to have to put up with this nonsense as well.

Interestingly, I find this strange behavior more prevalent in societies where women are forced into a submissive position and cannot deal on fair terms. It's probably a way out, but I think it would be better if they set better examples and force the issue with the men instead. While some may point out the nature of power dynamics in a society, it is strange that there is such cowardice that people would rather stick with the status quo than to band together and create a revolution.

Lincoln

Arguably one of the finest of the American presidents, Abraham Lincoln is quite the iconic figure of the Civil War. And here I am, having sat through a movie about the great president. I guess I can only say that I have emerged thinking about the struggles behind the 13th Amendment, and with some skepticism as to the character as portrayed in the film.

Lincoln is set in the Civil War period, and focuses primarily on the struggle the President had to get enough support to pass the Amendment. Throughout the film, I was struck by the well read and considered intellect of Mr President, and his sharp tongued "sidekick" Thaddeus. Thaddeus's unrelenting delivery of sarcastic wit arguably stole the show whenever they showed up.

I guess the first thing that struck me as odd was how Lincoln seemed to lack his trademark Kentucky accent. His understanding and application of classical philosophy also seemed slightly strange considering his background. Of course, I have no doubt as to his well read though unschooled status, but I am somehow doubtful as to whether that was how usual mannerism. I also pondered if he really did spend the final stretch of the Civil War fighting for the Amendment.

That said, the movie was not bad in and of itself, and actually presented a perspective that focused more on the internal politics of getting a controversial Amendment passed, instead of the usual focus on the Civil War. I appreciated that. Overall I'd say the film deserves a 7/10.

Yes

Yes is a powerful word. It opens doors, and can open the door to one discovering new pleasures and enjoyment. I have a general guideline to try everything at least once. At least within reason. I do intend to try dying, tried it once, but I figure I'll try staying dead at least once somewhere near the end of my lifetime. That said, here are my thoughts.

I don't usually feel much. I just kind of float around in life, and it gets dull. Then comes along an opportunity featuring something I despise. A friend asks me to go clubbing with him/her. I know what clubbing involves, the loud music, the weird smells, the disgusting human mobs and such. It is a madhouse filled with animals. Of course I do not enjoy it. Yet, with the invitation, I asked myself thus: Why don't I try it at least once?

I went in, cut loose, drank a whole lot, learned some new footwork on the dance floor (they were fighting steps, but don't tell anyone I said that) and overall I had a rather good time. By the time I came out, some of my fellas were piss drunk and one of my friends was busy slurring her words. Impressive. That said, I would not have experienced the inside of a club, let alone enjoyed myself, had I chosen to stick to my guns and stayed out.

Saying yes to enjoyment reminds me of a practical application of the concept parodied in Yes Man. While I tend to think that people should refrain from mindlessly saying yes to everything, one should also make it a point to routinely lower ones inhibitions and try out things that one's invited to do. One never knows if one might turn out to like it. As for my little experiment those years back, I never did feel too enthusiastic about going at it again. Wasn't my scene. But at least I didn't miss out.