It has been 30 days. Well technically it's another 5 hours before it has been exactly 30 days. I think it was in all, easier and harder than I thought it would be. Easier in that my own desire to use the site wasn't that great, but harder in the respect that others' expectations and social pressure.
I think it would be perfectly possible to live without Facebook. I think the site in many respects is actually quite boring. Although I do think that more and more integration with Facebook has lead it to become seated in a position where if you use the Internet you are expected to use Facebook. Along with Google and Wikipedia it seems that whatever you search for 9 out of 10 search results will include one of these sites in the top 10 results.
The number of times in the last month that I have Googled something and had Facebook pages thrown up as top results - which I actually have a gripe with, as often the facebook pages are full of crap, spam, useless information or just do not provide anything at all that you were searching for.
So I can see myself logging in to Facebook tomorrow and the site being returned to one of those sites I check regularly and find myself spending a lot of time, wasting time.
30 Day Movie Challenge: Index of Entries
I have decided from 1st of July to do a 30 day challenge like the Music challenge this time with Movies.
As before, when each post is made each of the titles below will turn into a hyperlink.
The modified titles are:
Day 01 - your favourite movie
Day 02 - your least favourite movie
Day 03 - a movie that makes you happy
Day 04 - a movie that makes you sad
Day 05 - a movie that reminds you of someone
Day 06 - a movie that reminds you of somewhere
Day 07 - a movie that reminds you of a certain event
Day 08 - a movie that stars your favourite actor
Day 09 - a movie that a friend introduced you to
Day 10 - a movie that makes you fall asleep
Day 11 - a movie from your favourite director
Day 12 - a movie from a director you hate
Day 13 - a movie that is a guilty pleasure
Day 14 - a movie that no one would expect you to love
Day 15 - a movie that describes you
Day 16 - a movie that you used to love but now hate
Day 17 - a movie that you see often on the T.V.
Day 18 - a movie that you wish you saw on the T.V.
Day 19 - a movie from your favourite franchise
Day 20 - a movie that you watch when you’re angry
Day 21 - a movie that you watch when you’re happy
Day 22 - a movie that you watch when you’re sad
Day 23 - a movie that you think everyone should see
Day 24 - a movie that you think no-one should see
Day 25 - a movie that makes you laugh
Day 26 - a movie that you could enact from memory
Day 27 - a movie that you wish you starred in
Day 28 - a movie that reminds you of a certain time of year
Day 29 - a movie from your childhood
Day 30 - the first Movie you ever saw at the Cinema
Bonus:
Day 31: Movies Worth Mentioning
Notes to be made:
For 2 - A Movie you do still like
For 8 - Actor or Actress swap as appropriate
For 19 - A single Movie from a Franchise or Serial comprised of 3 or more movies
For 26 - as best you can, doesn't have to be precise.
I think this one will be a lot harder than the Music challenge.
As before, when each post is made each of the titles below will turn into a hyperlink.
The modified titles are:
Day 01 - your favourite movie
Day 02 - your least favourite movie
Day 03 - a movie that makes you happy
Day 04 - a movie that makes you sad
Day 05 - a movie that reminds you of someone
Day 06 - a movie that reminds you of somewhere
Day 07 - a movie that reminds you of a certain event
Day 08 - a movie that stars your favourite actor
Day 09 - a movie that a friend introduced you to
Day 10 - a movie that makes you fall asleep
Day 11 - a movie from your favourite director
Day 12 - a movie from a director you hate
Day 13 - a movie that is a guilty pleasure
Day 14 - a movie that no one would expect you to love
Day 15 - a movie that describes you
Day 16 - a movie that you used to love but now hate
Day 17 - a movie that you see often on the T.V.
Day 18 - a movie that you wish you saw on the T.V.
Day 19 - a movie from your favourite franchise
Day 20 - a movie that you watch when you’re angry
Day 21 - a movie that you watch when you’re happy
Day 22 - a movie that you watch when you’re sad
Day 23 - a movie that you think everyone should see
Day 24 - a movie that you think no-one should see
Day 25 - a movie that makes you laugh
Day 26 - a movie that you could enact from memory
Day 27 - a movie that you wish you starred in
Day 28 - a movie that reminds you of a certain time of year
Day 29 - a movie from your childhood
Day 30 - the first Movie you ever saw at the Cinema
Bonus:
Day 31: Movies Worth Mentioning
Notes to be made:
For 2 - A Movie you do still like
For 8 - Actor or Actress swap as appropriate
For 19 - A single Movie from a Franchise or Serial comprised of 3 or more movies
For 26 - as best you can, doesn't have to be precise.
I think this one will be a lot harder than the Music challenge.
Of Relationships and Things
There are couplings within my family, Mom and Dad, Aunt and Uncle etc all of whom are happily married and have children. Now apart from these couplings where the relationship evolved to marriage and then having children - I am yet to meet someone in a long-term relationship that has proved successful, fulfilling and above all else a happy union.
I'm beginning to question - if you don't intend on getting married to someone and having children with them, what's the point of being in a long term relationship - with anyone?
You can receive affection from your friends, you can even feel love for them too - so this desire to feel wanted and to mean something to someone can be fulfilled without a relationship.
You can have friends with benefits, and there are a fair few people out there who are more than happy to have casual sex, so the question of having this desire fulfilled again seems that it can be taken care of without being in a relationship.
Then there are downsides to relationships too - the complications, the issues of trust and faithfulness; if you don't have complete and explicit trust between the two of you, then you shouldn't really be together. To me a serious relationship should be one where you are both committed and would never even dream of cheating on the other. Unfortunately the number of people in this day and age that are capable of this level of faithfulness seems to be dwindling rapidly. I'm not singling out any sexuality here, straight, gay, lesbian etc all sexualities share this pattern.
So if you can't find one of those rare gems, is it worth polishing a chunk of coal? You can shine it, buff it paint it red and call it a Ruby all you want but you can never escape that beyond the surface it's still a lump of coal.
I know some would say maybe I am being too harsh but I can keep an open mind, I know that a serious relationship can bring together all of the above positives into one place but call me a cynic but how does that expression go - of eggs and baskets and things . . .
I'm beginning to question - if you don't intend on getting married to someone and having children with them, what's the point of being in a long term relationship - with anyone?
You can receive affection from your friends, you can even feel love for them too - so this desire to feel wanted and to mean something to someone can be fulfilled without a relationship.
You can have friends with benefits, and there are a fair few people out there who are more than happy to have casual sex, so the question of having this desire fulfilled again seems that it can be taken care of without being in a relationship.
Then there are downsides to relationships too - the complications, the issues of trust and faithfulness; if you don't have complete and explicit trust between the two of you, then you shouldn't really be together. To me a serious relationship should be one where you are both committed and would never even dream of cheating on the other. Unfortunately the number of people in this day and age that are capable of this level of faithfulness seems to be dwindling rapidly. I'm not singling out any sexuality here, straight, gay, lesbian etc all sexualities share this pattern.
So if you can't find one of those rare gems, is it worth polishing a chunk of coal? You can shine it, buff it paint it red and call it a Ruby all you want but you can never escape that beyond the surface it's still a lump of coal.
I know some would say maybe I am being too harsh but I can keep an open mind, I know that a serious relationship can bring together all of the above positives into one place but call me a cynic but how does that expression go - of eggs and baskets and things . . .
Things you miss
There are a few things I used to do when I was younger that I don't do anymore, like horse riding, hiking, biking, mountain climbing etc. There's one thing which I used to do while at University which lately I have had a craving for - if you can call it a craving. I used to go Ice Skating. Admittedly it wasn't that often but it was fun. There's something about skating around gliding across the ice almost dancing, to cheesy music played by the cheesiest DJs in the world.
When I was in London I went to a few Ice rinks including one random trip mid-winter to the O2 Dome where there was a rink made up in the special events area. I went with my mate who was in AIESEC and needless to say it being "their thang" they treated the crowd to a dance - on ice. I miss random days like this but there are no rinks close to me here, I think the closest one is actually about 40 miles away.
I never learned to skate with any professionals, I just ventured out the first time and picked up what I could. I would like to go back and take actual lessons and learn to skate properly. It would help if I could actually learn to stop - I can skate quite well, I can even spin and turn and all the rest but I can't stop, how incredible is that?
When I was in London I went to a few Ice rinks including one random trip mid-winter to the O2 Dome where there was a rink made up in the special events area. I went with my mate who was in AIESEC and needless to say it being "their thang" they treated the crowd to a dance - on ice. I miss random days like this but there are no rinks close to me here, I think the closest one is actually about 40 miles away.
I never learned to skate with any professionals, I just ventured out the first time and picked up what I could. I would like to go back and take actual lessons and learn to skate properly. It would help if I could actually learn to stop - I can skate quite well, I can even spin and turn and all the rest but I can't stop, how incredible is that?
The One
In a somber note, some might say in a slightly depressing tone, I have been contemplating the idea of 'The One'.
Sadly no, I don't mean our dear Keanu as Neo in The Matrix, although to him I wouldn't say no. I mean 'The One' as in the dating sense. I don't really know if such thing really can be true. It's a nice idea that out there somewhere there's someone for everyone. The perfect Guy / Girl.
I suppose my greatest hurdle when it comes to embracing this concept is the question of fate or destiny as it where, namely - if 'The One' exists, are you destined to meet them or do you have to go look for them?
Accepting that you are destined to meet is the nicer option but its also the lazy option and despite the fact that it is easy it comes with one big caveat - free will - namely if you accept that you will meet through destiny then you inadvertently accept that you don't control your future or your life for that matter. Although it would seem that as it were to your advantage therefore you should be happy.
Accepting the latter option where you have to go and look for them throws open a whole new world of possibilities - literally, as your 'one' could be anywhere in the world and with almost 7 billion people out there that's one hell of a haystack and one tiny needle.
Yet there is one last issue, despite the question of how you would find or meet The One, any belief in The One at all negates the question. If you believe in The One you already accept that Destiny and Fate exist. If you refuse this then you return to square one, without belief in The One and left with a world of people to search through.
So it seems Destiny is quite Boolean in its design - all or nothing - true or false no third option:
True - True: I believe in The One, I believe we will meet and be brought together.
False - False: I do not believe in The One, I believe I will have to actively search for my partner.
Sadly no, I don't mean our dear Keanu as Neo in The Matrix, although to him I wouldn't say no. I mean 'The One' as in the dating sense. I don't really know if such thing really can be true. It's a nice idea that out there somewhere there's someone for everyone. The perfect Guy / Girl.
I suppose my greatest hurdle when it comes to embracing this concept is the question of fate or destiny as it where, namely - if 'The One' exists, are you destined to meet them or do you have to go look for them?
Accepting that you are destined to meet is the nicer option but its also the lazy option and despite the fact that it is easy it comes with one big caveat - free will - namely if you accept that you will meet through destiny then you inadvertently accept that you don't control your future or your life for that matter. Although it would seem that as it were to your advantage therefore you should be happy.
Accepting the latter option where you have to go and look for them throws open a whole new world of possibilities - literally, as your 'one' could be anywhere in the world and with almost 7 billion people out there that's one hell of a haystack and one tiny needle.
Yet there is one last issue, despite the question of how you would find or meet The One, any belief in The One at all negates the question. If you believe in The One you already accept that Destiny and Fate exist. If you refuse this then you return to square one, without belief in The One and left with a world of people to search through.
So it seems Destiny is quite Boolean in its design - all or nothing - true or false no third option:
True - True: I believe in The One, I believe we will meet and be brought together.
False - False: I do not believe in The One, I believe I will have to actively search for my partner.
Book Review: Dracula by Bram Stoker
I had often heard about this book and I had seen countless movies on the subject but I had never actually read it. First impressions are that the book is quite heavy, both in the physical and linguistic senses. The writing style is perfectly reflective of the period in which it was written.
Reading the book with modern sensitivities it can be both frustrating and annoying to see the ways in which the characters act, both in their attitudes towards women, and vampires. On the issue of women the book can be quite sexist at times but again this can only attributed to the mentality of the age, I'm not a woman but I did have the desire to smack one or two of the male characters at certain times.
On the issue of vampires again the frustration experienced here can only be attributed to the fact that most children now-a-days would be more versed on vampire lore than Van Helsing himself the supposed expert cast in the book. Still nevertheless the book was entertaining to read, at times addictive and made several u-turns throughout to keep the reader guessing.
I would recommend this book if you are interested in seeing the origins of Vampire fiction but if you are looking for an archaic version of Twilight then this is not for you. Out of 10 I would give it a 7. Strong, but not a book I would go back and read again.
Reading the book with modern sensitivities it can be both frustrating and annoying to see the ways in which the characters act, both in their attitudes towards women, and vampires. On the issue of women the book can be quite sexist at times but again this can only attributed to the mentality of the age, I'm not a woman but I did have the desire to smack one or two of the male characters at certain times.
On the issue of vampires again the frustration experienced here can only be attributed to the fact that most children now-a-days would be more versed on vampire lore than Van Helsing himself the supposed expert cast in the book. Still nevertheless the book was entertaining to read, at times addictive and made several u-turns throughout to keep the reader guessing.
I would recommend this book if you are interested in seeing the origins of Vampire fiction but if you are looking for an archaic version of Twilight then this is not for you. Out of 10 I would give it a 7. Strong, but not a book I would go back and read again.
The fine line between Alliance and Exploitation
This blog post is about Gay Rights. Not the question of these rights directly but rather a focus on cultural semblance of the Gay Rights Movement.
In particular I would like to focus on pop-stars and singers. There have been numerous mainstream pop artists who have become Gay Icons and been outspoken Gay Rights Activists. While I believe many of them would have the best intentions at heart, but can we assume this is true in all cases?
Should Gay Activism automatically provide a large Gay following? I would assume not as one does not necessarily imply the other but in recent years this trend has been growing and it has made me think - do all the people who gather large Gay followings truly deserve that following?
In this I mean if a singer for instance is a Gay Activist, I do not believe this should require or evoke a large following - their following should be decided by their talent and their natural appeal not appeal garnered through political activity. Politics should be kept out of Music in this respect in my opinion.
You might argue that some artists who follow this route have both a large following because of their political and also their musical endeavours. While this may be true for some I have personally witnessed this conversation:
Yea, I'm not an idiot, I know the only reason he changed his mind was because of the above conversation. This expresses my point eloquently - at what point does Alliance become Exploitation? If the singer had intended to pursue political prominence for the sole purpose of furthering their career they wouldn't exactly be up-front about it now would they?
How can you tell if their motivations are true? This question of course would be redundant if people didn't 'flock' like sheep.
In particular I would like to focus on pop-stars and singers. There have been numerous mainstream pop artists who have become Gay Icons and been outspoken Gay Rights Activists. While I believe many of them would have the best intentions at heart, but can we assume this is true in all cases?
Should Gay Activism automatically provide a large Gay following? I would assume not as one does not necessarily imply the other but in recent years this trend has been growing and it has made me think - do all the people who gather large Gay followings truly deserve that following?
In this I mean if a singer for instance is a Gay Activist, I do not believe this should require or evoke a large following - their following should be decided by their talent and their natural appeal not appeal garnered through political activity. Politics should be kept out of Music in this respect in my opinion.
You might argue that some artists who follow this route have both a large following because of their political and also their musical endeavours. While this may be true for some I have personally witnessed this conversation:
K: What do you think of X?
N: Can't stand X, all their Music just sounds the same.
K: They were on Stonewall's website yesterday gave an interview. Apparently they are quite involved in Gay Rights Activism.
N: Oh, I did not know that. . .
[One week later]
N: Have you heard X's new album? It's actually not that bad y'know I think I was wrong about them.
Yea, I'm not an idiot, I know the only reason he changed his mind was because of the above conversation. This expresses my point eloquently - at what point does Alliance become Exploitation? If the singer had intended to pursue political prominence for the sole purpose of furthering their career they wouldn't exactly be up-front about it now would they?
How can you tell if their motivations are true? This question of course would be redundant if people didn't 'flock' like sheep.
Exercise
I have recently started a new exercise routine involving weight training and jogging. However being the sort of person that is not inclined to go running around town I opted for the stay at home jogging which of course means exercise equipment.
Now in my experience exercise equipment is usually bought, used for a week, then used as a clothes rack for a month then delegated to the garage / shed / attic and never seen again until you have a yard sale or a relative has a keep-fit phase and they buy it of you or you give them it free if you think its in a rough state.
Normally I would agree with that. However I didn't buy the exercise equipment here, my brother did. Now I know with him the above scenario will happen. In fact it's already in the process. Nevertheless I have a goal and the equipment may as well be used.
He bought an elliptical strider. Now I have used these before in the Gym and from that experience at least I found them enjoyable and easy to use. I have been on this new routine a week now. I started with a daily half hour session and now I have worked up to hour long sessions. You are meant to start off on 5 minute sessions and work your way up which is very easy. However I'm not exactly out of shape. I have been lifting weights for over a year now.
My goal isn't to be the next Arnold Schwarzenegger [wow, actually spelt that right first time] but rather to reach a level of physical fitness that I can be happy with. For the most part I have achieved this everywhere except my stomach and abdominal area. I have tried doing sit ups in the hundreds and various odd poses and positions with weights and nothing has worked so far. The elliptical strider I don't believe was intended to target your abs, but it does help your core when you maintain a solid posture. It's more comfortable than running on a treadmill because your legs move in a more natural motion and I have noticed there is less pressure and more 'work' being done.
Now in my experience exercise equipment is usually bought, used for a week, then used as a clothes rack for a month then delegated to the garage / shed / attic and never seen again until you have a yard sale or a relative has a keep-fit phase and they buy it of you or you give them it free if you think its in a rough state.
Normally I would agree with that. However I didn't buy the exercise equipment here, my brother did. Now I know with him the above scenario will happen. In fact it's already in the process. Nevertheless I have a goal and the equipment may as well be used.
He bought an elliptical strider. Now I have used these before in the Gym and from that experience at least I found them enjoyable and easy to use. I have been on this new routine a week now. I started with a daily half hour session and now I have worked up to hour long sessions. You are meant to start off on 5 minute sessions and work your way up which is very easy. However I'm not exactly out of shape. I have been lifting weights for over a year now.
My goal isn't to be the next Arnold Schwarzenegger [wow, actually spelt that right first time] but rather to reach a level of physical fitness that I can be happy with. For the most part I have achieved this everywhere except my stomach and abdominal area. I have tried doing sit ups in the hundreds and various odd poses and positions with weights and nothing has worked so far. The elliptical strider I don't believe was intended to target your abs, but it does help your core when you maintain a solid posture. It's more comfortable than running on a treadmill because your legs move in a more natural motion and I have noticed there is less pressure and more 'work' being done.
Sempre Viva!
In 1900, the average life expectancy was around 45. Now in 2011 the average life expectancy is double that give or take a few years depending on country. Life Expectancy has been growing higher and higher over time and if the trend follows at the same rate then by 2100 the average life expectancy should be at least 150 years old maybe more.
Now despite all the advancements in science you have two questions we should ask, 3 if you want to be a bit Machiavellian:
1. How long can we actually live for?
2. How long would you actually want to live for?
3. How long are we meant to live for?
The first is obviously limited by our advancements of medical science, our environment and our determination to stay alive. The second and third questions open philosophical debate and let us discuss it on a more abstract level.
Would you actually want to live forever? If we did we would need to expand to other planets and reach out amongst the stars because this planet just isn't big enough. Estimates of "the total number of people who have ever lived" published in the first decade of the 21st century range approximately from 100 to 115 billion. If we didn't die, with a population that large imagine the birth rate? Our current global birth rate is approximately 23 births per 1,000 people per year. If there was no such thing as death, and our populous was 115 billion then our birth rate would be 2.6 billion per year. The planet simply could not take it.
Makes you wonder though, knowing this and knowing the limit of our planet and it being the only one we have, if we did discover a way to live forever: would we be allowed to use it?
That brings us to the final question, how long are we meant to live, and has someone already answered this question for us - someone of an Earthbound nature - embrace your darker side if you will in contemplation of your answer.
Now despite all the advancements in science you have two questions we should ask, 3 if you want to be a bit Machiavellian:
1. How long can we actually live for?
2. How long would you actually want to live for?
3. How long are we meant to live for?
The first is obviously limited by our advancements of medical science, our environment and our determination to stay alive. The second and third questions open philosophical debate and let us discuss it on a more abstract level.
Would you actually want to live forever? If we did we would need to expand to other planets and reach out amongst the stars because this planet just isn't big enough. Estimates of "the total number of people who have ever lived" published in the first decade of the 21st century range approximately from 100 to 115 billion. If we didn't die, with a population that large imagine the birth rate? Our current global birth rate is approximately 23 births per 1,000 people per year. If there was no such thing as death, and our populous was 115 billion then our birth rate would be 2.6 billion per year. The planet simply could not take it.
Makes you wonder though, knowing this and knowing the limit of our planet and it being the only one we have, if we did discover a way to live forever: would we be allowed to use it?
That brings us to the final question, how long are we meant to live, and has someone already answered this question for us - someone of an Earthbound nature - embrace your darker side if you will in contemplation of your answer.
Day 07 Without Facebook
1 week without Facebook and I have had a few near misses, from links being shared that I have spotted were Facebook before clicked to people asking for help with Facebook privacy controls etc and the passive stalking incurred when one friend meets someone new and uses facebook to show you what they look like - all of this I have successfully avoided.
I have come to realize the biggest factor in my use of facebook is social expectation. I have had little to no personal urge to use the site or even any wonder about the people on it or what they have been up to. I have been in contact with the people I care about through other means namely twitter, WLM, txt and Skype.
So a pretty dull update albeit interesting to some extent.
I have come to realize the biggest factor in my use of facebook is social expectation. I have had little to no personal urge to use the site or even any wonder about the people on it or what they have been up to. I have been in contact with the people I care about through other means namely twitter, WLM, txt and Skype.
So a pretty dull update albeit interesting to some extent.
Fact is Fluid
What is considered to be a fact, really should be that which can be proven and known to be true but our society blurs this definition so much and so often that really the definition of fact should be that which the majority believes to be true.
If there were 100 million people who all believed something to be true and 1 person who believed it to be false - then, regardless of whether that one person's conclusions are empirically correct, the fact of the matter will be defined as what the majority of people believed to be true.
You may argue with this but there are countless examples to demonstrate this, none more so than the fundamental foundations of almost every major legal system in the world. Any trial involving a Jury uses this definition in passing judgement, our elections and laws are dictated by this definition and for many years our religious beliefs have also been influenced by this definition.
Science is not without fault either, there is no such concept as faith in the world of science and ultimately that can lead the pioneering endeavours of individuals to be somewhat void. No-one will set out to define new areas of Science and pose new theories that have no foundation in current scientific beliefs. Evolution and development in the World of Science is limited only to building upon existing foundations. Imagine a House, you can only extend the original house so many times and in so many ways. Eventually you will need new sites and new ground to plant new foundations upon before you can connect them to the existing.
If there were 100 million people who all believed something to be true and 1 person who believed it to be false - then, regardless of whether that one person's conclusions are empirically correct, the fact of the matter will be defined as what the majority of people believed to be true.
You may argue with this but there are countless examples to demonstrate this, none more so than the fundamental foundations of almost every major legal system in the world. Any trial involving a Jury uses this definition in passing judgement, our elections and laws are dictated by this definition and for many years our religious beliefs have also been influenced by this definition.
Science is not without fault either, there is no such concept as faith in the world of science and ultimately that can lead the pioneering endeavours of individuals to be somewhat void. No-one will set out to define new areas of Science and pose new theories that have no foundation in current scientific beliefs. Evolution and development in the World of Science is limited only to building upon existing foundations. Imagine a House, you can only extend the original house so many times and in so many ways. Eventually you will need new sites and new ground to plant new foundations upon before you can connect them to the existing.
Yes, it is all your fault!
I have personal experience in both receiving and giving the line "It's not your fault" in a breakup of close friendships and close relationships. I just want to say for anyone out there, this line is incredibly frustrating and you should never use it.
Reason being, in order to come to terms with the end you need resolution - closure. "It's not your fault" leaves the person who delivers this line absolving the recipient of all guilt and all responsibility - but this is a bad thing, for without guilt or any degree of responsibility there is nothing the recipient can take and resolve. The effect of this line is to cause the recipient to be left without closure. They will in their own minds insist that it was something they did, no matter how hard you persist in your words this thought process cannot be escaped it will happen.
Absolving the person of guilt or responsibility will leave them in a prolonged state of confusion and upset. Now if you had said the counter, that it was indeed their fault, all their fault then they would have the necessary to rebuke your accusations. If the accusations are in earnest then they can take constructive criticism away with them and develop further. If the accusations are not in earnest or if the recipient thinks they are unfounded or unfair then they will argue with you - this is good, arguing is healthy it is how we vent out the emotions that if bottled up would cause us to become prisoners to our thoughts and feelings.
You have to do what is best, and despite what we are lead to believe the route of avoiding confrontation at all costs is not the healthiest route to progress down. If you want the other person to move on, if you want them to be able to let you go then you have to give them that chance. "It's not your fault" as noble as these four words are they can do more harm than good.
We only argue with people whose opinions we actually care about. Otherwise the argument is pointless.
Reason being, in order to come to terms with the end you need resolution - closure. "It's not your fault" leaves the person who delivers this line absolving the recipient of all guilt and all responsibility - but this is a bad thing, for without guilt or any degree of responsibility there is nothing the recipient can take and resolve. The effect of this line is to cause the recipient to be left without closure. They will in their own minds insist that it was something they did, no matter how hard you persist in your words this thought process cannot be escaped it will happen.
Absolving the person of guilt or responsibility will leave them in a prolonged state of confusion and upset. Now if you had said the counter, that it was indeed their fault, all their fault then they would have the necessary to rebuke your accusations. If the accusations are in earnest then they can take constructive criticism away with them and develop further. If the accusations are not in earnest or if the recipient thinks they are unfounded or unfair then they will argue with you - this is good, arguing is healthy it is how we vent out the emotions that if bottled up would cause us to become prisoners to our thoughts and feelings.
You have to do what is best, and despite what we are lead to believe the route of avoiding confrontation at all costs is not the healthiest route to progress down. If you want the other person to move on, if you want them to be able to let you go then you have to give them that chance. "It's not your fault" as noble as these four words are they can do more harm than good.
We only argue with people whose opinions we actually care about. Otherwise the argument is pointless.
Day 03 without Facebook
I am entering my third day without facebook now and it's been interesting so far. I've been less distracted from doing what I really should be doing instead of putting it off. I have had a number of Facebook referrals - where people send me something or say check Facebook for this or that etc and I have had to remark "No, can't! ha-ha". The interesting thing though is that I have little urge to check facebook consciously, e.g. thinking 'oh must check facebook' etc.
I deleted my bookmarks to Facebook before the 30 day challenge started also deleted my cookie and cleared the session so I can't accidentally log in to it. I have found myself unconsciously going through my bookmarks as if looking for something and not clicking anything. I have been looking for the facebook bookmark without knowing it - that is kinda scary that visiting a site has become an impulse almost an addiction to do something without even knowing you are doing it.
I think I can do the 30 days without, not sure what I will do after that period though. I think in future I will be more aware of how much time I actually spend on there. I mean, what do you actually DO on facebook? 'Cause even now I don't actually know why I would want to check it.
I deleted my bookmarks to Facebook before the 30 day challenge started also deleted my cookie and cleared the session so I can't accidentally log in to it. I have found myself unconsciously going through my bookmarks as if looking for something and not clicking anything. I have been looking for the facebook bookmark without knowing it - that is kinda scary that visiting a site has become an impulse almost an addiction to do something without even knowing you are doing it.
I think I can do the 30 days without, not sure what I will do after that period though. I think in future I will be more aware of how much time I actually spend on there. I mean, what do you actually DO on facebook? 'Cause even now I don't actually know why I would want to check it.
Free Will Paradox
FAO: Atheists: Please put aside any Theistic prejudice and approach with an open mind
FAO: Theists: Nobody likes a gloat so don't read and feel smug.
One of the biggest points of contention in the argument of whether any deity exists is the question of Free Will - being able to do as you please and control your own life.
I and others have often thought that the Atheists are those that are most free in will while Theists are constricted the most in what they can and can't do. However it has dawned on me to question this. I have come to terms with accepting one part of my personality, a part that I have tried to change as of late and that is my overall organisation. I do not mean organisation in terms of how neat and tidy I am, instead I mean in terms of life goals, schedules and targets etc.
For the first 21 years of my life I embraced a level of 'perfect Chaos' in my life. For the most part I surrendered my will to fate and let life and others guide my overall goal and destination. I thought only of the little things and the day to day aspects of life and never thought much about the overall direction in which it was headed. For the most part it worked. Good and Bad things occurred in my life but that is to be expected that is normal. Arguably I had an abnormal childhood in most cultural standards but normal by the standard of where I lived and the people around me. [I am talking in particular about growing up in Northern Ireland and the many things that I grew up around that children really shouldn't - through no fault of my parents this is just the reality of life in NI]. But through it all I had time for my family, I had time for my friends, I did the things I wanted to do and I achieved the small goals I set for myself and often surpassed both my own and others' expectation. Above all else however is the fact that I was happy.
In the past 2 years I have tried proactively to change who I am and become an organised person and to map out my life and create schedules and try and take complete control. It is undebatable that this has proven to be futile and produced more bad than good and left me in a position of depression and angst. I have given up on this now because I have come to terms with the fact that this is not who I am. I am not a controller. I never sought before and shouldn't again lest the results turn out like they have it would be a very bad judgement.
So I have reverted to my old self and have embraced the world of perfect Chaos and I am already feeling the benefit. I am less stressed, I am spending more time with my family, I am actually getting things done I have put off for ages and I have made time to see my friends, including arranging a trip to Paris to see not one but two of my closest friends.
Now here's the point of epiphany. I have thought about those religious types who 'surrender their will to God' and live off the rewards of doing so and try to live a happy life worrying only of the day to day. While many would see this as a form of enslavement to some higher power I would argue that those who choose this path paradoxically have more free will and more freedom to do what they want with their lives. Those who try to take complete control of their lives on the other hand willingly burden themselves.
I have no aspirations of fame, or fortune for that matter. I would not turn them down if they presented themselves but I do not want them enough to seek them. I don't have any aspiration to become CEO of some multi-trans-inter-national conglomerate or to be a best selling recording artist etc. All I want, all I have ever wanted is to live a quiet, happy life. For the first time in two years I think that is possible.
So I just ask you a simple question: Who really has free will? Those who control their lives entirely or those who focus on the day to day and let 'God' or 'Fate' or 'Other' decide the rest?
FAO: Theists: Nobody likes a gloat so don't read and feel smug.
One of the biggest points of contention in the argument of whether any deity exists is the question of Free Will - being able to do as you please and control your own life.
I and others have often thought that the Atheists are those that are most free in will while Theists are constricted the most in what they can and can't do. However it has dawned on me to question this. I have come to terms with accepting one part of my personality, a part that I have tried to change as of late and that is my overall organisation. I do not mean organisation in terms of how neat and tidy I am, instead I mean in terms of life goals, schedules and targets etc.
For the first 21 years of my life I embraced a level of 'perfect Chaos' in my life. For the most part I surrendered my will to fate and let life and others guide my overall goal and destination. I thought only of the little things and the day to day aspects of life and never thought much about the overall direction in which it was headed. For the most part it worked. Good and Bad things occurred in my life but that is to be expected that is normal. Arguably I had an abnormal childhood in most cultural standards but normal by the standard of where I lived and the people around me. [I am talking in particular about growing up in Northern Ireland and the many things that I grew up around that children really shouldn't - through no fault of my parents this is just the reality of life in NI]. But through it all I had time for my family, I had time for my friends, I did the things I wanted to do and I achieved the small goals I set for myself and often surpassed both my own and others' expectation. Above all else however is the fact that I was happy.
In the past 2 years I have tried proactively to change who I am and become an organised person and to map out my life and create schedules and try and take complete control. It is undebatable that this has proven to be futile and produced more bad than good and left me in a position of depression and angst. I have given up on this now because I have come to terms with the fact that this is not who I am. I am not a controller. I never sought before and shouldn't again lest the results turn out like they have it would be a very bad judgement.
So I have reverted to my old self and have embraced the world of perfect Chaos and I am already feeling the benefit. I am less stressed, I am spending more time with my family, I am actually getting things done I have put off for ages and I have made time to see my friends, including arranging a trip to Paris to see not one but two of my closest friends.
Now here's the point of epiphany. I have thought about those religious types who 'surrender their will to God' and live off the rewards of doing so and try to live a happy life worrying only of the day to day. While many would see this as a form of enslavement to some higher power I would argue that those who choose this path paradoxically have more free will and more freedom to do what they want with their lives. Those who try to take complete control of their lives on the other hand willingly burden themselves.
I have no aspirations of fame, or fortune for that matter. I would not turn them down if they presented themselves but I do not want them enough to seek them. I don't have any aspiration to become CEO of some multi-trans-inter-national conglomerate or to be a best selling recording artist etc. All I want, all I have ever wanted is to live a quiet, happy life. For the first time in two years I think that is possible.
So I just ask you a simple question: Who really has free will? Those who control their lives entirely or those who focus on the day to day and let 'God' or 'Fate' or 'Other' decide the rest?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)