Consider if you will, the possibility that you could wake up tomorrow having travelled back in time whilst you slept. Now imagine you awake in a world some 14,000 years ago. How much impact on the course of human history could you have? Would you be able to revolutionize the endeavours of mankind thousands of years before it would have come to those discoveries on its own? You would possess all the knowledge that you do now, but when you stop and think about it, how deep is your understanding of the world? You know of most of the technology we use day to day and how it has improved our lives, or degraded them depending on your point of view, but do you actually understand how any of it works? Would you be able to recreate any of it?
Would you even be able to survive if you awoke in a world with nothing where you must start from scratch? It's a far cry from playing Minecraft in survival mode and starting with nothing compared to the real world and starting with nothing. Consider if you will the very basis of human social interaction - speech - would you even be able to communicate with anyone you met? Most modern languages are incredibly young in terms of how long they have existed, go back a few hundred years and even those people who are our not too distant ancestors would struggle to have a conversation with us, never mind talking to those who do not speak a language that still exists today.
Go beyond this still and you come to one of the perplexing questions often asked by those who contemplate time travel and its implications - would anyone believe anything you say? In the modern world even with our understanding of the Universe and our scientific background, if an individual claims to be a time traveller the claim would be met with immediate scepticism. It might interest you to know this isn't a hypothetical scenario, there have been many individuals who have claimed to be time travellers, one of the most high profile cases is that of John Titor an individual who communicated only through the Internet, who surfaced around the year 2000 and made many claims, some of which came true and others which did not, yet bare a strikingly close correlation to world events as they are now progressing.
The question of whether or not you would be believed ultimately relies on how much detail you can go into, however the more detail you go into the more likely you would be to alter the course of human history, perhaps preventing many of the future events you had knowledge of from ever happening, in which case you lose the advantage of having foresight and simply become another resident of that time period. In the case of John Titor, he went into details that gave specific dates, which came and went without the events occurring that he predicted, even though some of those events have now happened at later dates and the potential for the rest to occur remains, the fact his predictions were not correct to a T dismissed any credibility thereof.
That leads to one final perplexing question held by those who contemplate time travel - are events fixed or not? Would a new timeline be created with every interaction we have, or would events proceed the same way regardless of our actions? This opens up the debate on Multiverse theory amongst others, which all attempt to explain what might happen - the operative word being "might" in that we don't actually know because to our knowledge nobody has ever actually managed to do it.
Rituals
A ritual is a routine that is carried out the same way at various intervals. They can be daily, or yearly, or observed less often, or more frequently as the case may be, but the method and the execution is always carried out the same way. Rituals in their origin were essentially ceremonies that would bestow a rite upon the person they were performed. Rites are by nature something inherently religious or relating to belief as opposed to rights which are related more closely to the way we should expect to be treated in the world or what we can and cannot do. Rites are essentially rights that are gifted by some authority figure, that can be embodied in the form of an actual person or disembodied in the form of various gods that people worship.
Whilst the term has religious significance, I do find it fascinating how the concept can be applied to Human behaviours that are carried out in a similar way. Either with repetition that is predictable or more true to the original term, in executions that conform to those prior executions. A similar concept is that of traditions where certain acts are carried out because of prior instances. For example tossing the bouquet at a wedding is an example of a tradition. The marriage ceremony itself can be considered a ritual. The fine line between the two is that one is relaxed, and the other is rigid and has a set order and structure that is to be observed.
Beyond grand social conventions however the rituals that fascinate me most are those that people carry out with greater frequency. Yearly or monthly or even daily rituals that people have. There comes a question of where the line is drawn between routine and ritual. If you wake around the same time every day, get up, do the same thing, in the same order every day, is that simply a routine, or is it a ritual? Whilst one can argue that no rite is bestowed as a reward upon those who carry out this routine, that's not strictly true is it? Take for example getting up, getting dressed, travelling to work, working 9 to 5, and then going home. You do this day in, day out, the same thing every day, there is a structure, there is an order, and most importantly, there is an authority figure either in yourself if self employed, or in that of your employer. There is a punishment for breaking the routine without permission, and there are rewards for adhering to it with precision - namely the wage packet that comes at the end of the month. There comes the final question - is a job, a right or a rite?
You can argue that everyone should have the right to employment but that's not true, not now nor throughout history. You cannot demand a job, you must be given a job. Even if you are self employed and create your own job, in order to establish yourself there is a lot of work that must go into the process and a lot of effort must be made in order to win clients or to engage in the business that drives further business for you, none of which you can simply demand, you must follow the ritual necessary to get to that end.
A job, whilst something most people will aspire to have, is not something that you can keep forever and nobody can take it away from you, an employer can fire you, and clients can stop using your services, so the argument that a job or work as a whole is a right is not easy to make given the definition of a right. Is it a rite however? There is certainly a reward for carrying out the ritual religiously, and that reward does increase privilege however marginally so. We therefore end up with the final question with regards to rituals - what must the reward be, must there even be one at all, for us to consider it a ritual?
Whilst the term has religious significance, I do find it fascinating how the concept can be applied to Human behaviours that are carried out in a similar way. Either with repetition that is predictable or more true to the original term, in executions that conform to those prior executions. A similar concept is that of traditions where certain acts are carried out because of prior instances. For example tossing the bouquet at a wedding is an example of a tradition. The marriage ceremony itself can be considered a ritual. The fine line between the two is that one is relaxed, and the other is rigid and has a set order and structure that is to be observed.
Beyond grand social conventions however the rituals that fascinate me most are those that people carry out with greater frequency. Yearly or monthly or even daily rituals that people have. There comes a question of where the line is drawn between routine and ritual. If you wake around the same time every day, get up, do the same thing, in the same order every day, is that simply a routine, or is it a ritual? Whilst one can argue that no rite is bestowed as a reward upon those who carry out this routine, that's not strictly true is it? Take for example getting up, getting dressed, travelling to work, working 9 to 5, and then going home. You do this day in, day out, the same thing every day, there is a structure, there is an order, and most importantly, there is an authority figure either in yourself if self employed, or in that of your employer. There is a punishment for breaking the routine without permission, and there are rewards for adhering to it with precision - namely the wage packet that comes at the end of the month. There comes the final question - is a job, a right or a rite?
You can argue that everyone should have the right to employment but that's not true, not now nor throughout history. You cannot demand a job, you must be given a job. Even if you are self employed and create your own job, in order to establish yourself there is a lot of work that must go into the process and a lot of effort must be made in order to win clients or to engage in the business that drives further business for you, none of which you can simply demand, you must follow the ritual necessary to get to that end.
A job, whilst something most people will aspire to have, is not something that you can keep forever and nobody can take it away from you, an employer can fire you, and clients can stop using your services, so the argument that a job or work as a whole is a right is not easy to make given the definition of a right. Is it a rite however? There is certainly a reward for carrying out the ritual religiously, and that reward does increase privilege however marginally so. We therefore end up with the final question with regards to rituals - what must the reward be, must there even be one at all, for us to consider it a ritual?
It's not what you know, it's who you know
Time and again there is a saying that crops up which I have uttered myself many times and that is, "it's not what you know, it's who you know", I believe this and I stand by it. I stand by it because I have seen it first hand, how those who perform the best are routinely overlooked for those who are more popular or who have a better relationship with the person who makes decisions. There is another saying that is quite similar in the tone that it intimates and that is "it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it" - which in an argument can be one of the most infuriating things to hear because it's basically an admission that you are right but they still aren't backing your side just because they don't like you or the way you do things.
I've spoken about politics before although in a round about way that doesn't drill down into specific issues often. One thing that is most definitely prevalent in Politics is the idea that those in power get to be there because of the connections they have. In the UK for example the Prime Minister leads the executive branch of government and they have a cabinet of Ministers that oversee the departments and the ministries that comprise the government as a whole. It is rare that those who are appointed to this positions actually have any real expertise or experience in the fields that become their remit. It is a rare thing for a politician to have actually served in the armed forces let alone have much experience with it when they are appointed the Minister for Defence. It is rare for a politician to hold a doctorate or have any formal training in medicine or the fields within the Healthcare industry before they are appointed as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
One of the things I find most egregious about Western Democracies in their current form is the fact that they are driven by popularity alone, not by expertise. You need no formal background whatsoever to become a Politician if you can convince people to vote for you that's all you need. In almost every senior profession associated with the departments and ministries mentioned above when it comes to the actual work, you need to be qualified to do it. Yet when it comes to being appointed to run those departments or ministries there's no qualification needed. I think it would be better if Western Democracies started to vet the people who run for office and require them to actually have experience of the fields they intend to govern.
One of the major gripes people often have with those in government is the claim that they know nothing, but with a system that does not ensure they know something, what do you expect? We're living through a period of time now where, those offices and careers that people once thought you needed a lifetime of experience to undertake, are being filled by people who are increasingly idiotic to the point where the illusion that those who are in power are somehow set apart and held to a different standard and come from privileged backgrounds with world class educations has well and truly slipped. The cold hard reality that those in power know no more than the man on the street is now apparent for all to see and the more that unnerves people the more I hope there will be a drive towards increased vetting and an elevation of those careers. We do more to protect the title of Surgeon or Doctor than we do Secretary of State for Health, when the latter impacts our treatment to a far greater extent, even preventing us from ever seeing the former in the first place.
I've spoken about politics before although in a round about way that doesn't drill down into specific issues often. One thing that is most definitely prevalent in Politics is the idea that those in power get to be there because of the connections they have. In the UK for example the Prime Minister leads the executive branch of government and they have a cabinet of Ministers that oversee the departments and the ministries that comprise the government as a whole. It is rare that those who are appointed to this positions actually have any real expertise or experience in the fields that become their remit. It is a rare thing for a politician to have actually served in the armed forces let alone have much experience with it when they are appointed the Minister for Defence. It is rare for a politician to hold a doctorate or have any formal training in medicine or the fields within the Healthcare industry before they are appointed as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
One of the things I find most egregious about Western Democracies in their current form is the fact that they are driven by popularity alone, not by expertise. You need no formal background whatsoever to become a Politician if you can convince people to vote for you that's all you need. In almost every senior profession associated with the departments and ministries mentioned above when it comes to the actual work, you need to be qualified to do it. Yet when it comes to being appointed to run those departments or ministries there's no qualification needed. I think it would be better if Western Democracies started to vet the people who run for office and require them to actually have experience of the fields they intend to govern.
One of the major gripes people often have with those in government is the claim that they know nothing, but with a system that does not ensure they know something, what do you expect? We're living through a period of time now where, those offices and careers that people once thought you needed a lifetime of experience to undertake, are being filled by people who are increasingly idiotic to the point where the illusion that those who are in power are somehow set apart and held to a different standard and come from privileged backgrounds with world class educations has well and truly slipped. The cold hard reality that those in power know no more than the man on the street is now apparent for all to see and the more that unnerves people the more I hope there will be a drive towards increased vetting and an elevation of those careers. We do more to protect the title of Surgeon or Doctor than we do Secretary of State for Health, when the latter impacts our treatment to a far greater extent, even preventing us from ever seeing the former in the first place.
Destructive Love
When we love someone or something, we open ourselves up to it in a way that we do not open to anything else. Whilst this allows the intensity of our emotions to amplify, it also opens us up to incredible pain and heartache. This isn't just true of romantic love although that is the focus of most ruminations on the subject, love can be considered a delimitation on a scale of desire. With liking, lusting, even hating and loathing, all forming part of the same scale.
The more we open ourselves up the more vulnerable we become, in doing so we place ever increasing levels of trust in those things that we love. Whilst doing so with humans leaves us open to heartache that we can associate with those people, whenever we do so with animals and inanimate objects it becomes much more difficult to shift the blame to anyone or anything else, to the point where we have to accept that ultimately the heartache we experience when we are burned by love is our own fault not the fault of the other.
Rationale and reason however are often the first to disappear whenever we pursue the things we like, love, hate, and loathe and all that lies in between. I am not speaking of romantic love alone although it applies there too, no instead I am speaking more of the love of things that really can't love us back, at least not in the way that we do for them. Something as simple as the love of food, or drink, or anything else, if it is something we hold a desire for, even when we know it will cause us harm, our emotions override logic and reason and we pursue it still.
For me, spicy food is an example. When I was younger I ate it all the time, and had no problem doing so. I ate jars of chilli peppers as snacks, and devoured Madras that was so hot it was like microwaving lava on the sun - 10 points if you get that reference. Yet my tolerance for it has waned with age, much to my dismay. Despite the love of spicy food, and the happiness it gives me when eating it, what inevitably ensues causes quite a lot of pain now - quite literally physical pain. My constitution cannot handle it anymore. This isn't the only thing that I once enjoyed but now cannot tolerate. There was one infamous night where I took my love of Tequila too far and spent the rest of the early morning with my head in the bowl, that was many years ago and to this day if I drink any Tequila at all it goes down and then comes right back up.
Sooner or later you have to learn that even if your emotions are telling you yes, you have to accept the answer needs to be no, not because you want it to be, but because it has to be, or suffer the pain.
When it comes to love of people, both platonic and romantic, the same too applies. If we allow ourselves we will forever pursue that which is destructive, and our emotions will convince us time and again that it is the right thing to do, even when we know the pain will come. When love is destructive you have to ask yourself if you're willing to be destroyed in order to experience it. As I said, like, love, hate, and loathing all form part of the same scale, and they too form part of the same behavioural precedent. They can all be incredibly destructive to us, yet the desire to pursue them can be overwhelming, you have to ask yourself if it is worth it in the end.
The more we open ourselves up the more vulnerable we become, in doing so we place ever increasing levels of trust in those things that we love. Whilst doing so with humans leaves us open to heartache that we can associate with those people, whenever we do so with animals and inanimate objects it becomes much more difficult to shift the blame to anyone or anything else, to the point where we have to accept that ultimately the heartache we experience when we are burned by love is our own fault not the fault of the other.
Rationale and reason however are often the first to disappear whenever we pursue the things we like, love, hate, and loathe and all that lies in between. I am not speaking of romantic love alone although it applies there too, no instead I am speaking more of the love of things that really can't love us back, at least not in the way that we do for them. Something as simple as the love of food, or drink, or anything else, if it is something we hold a desire for, even when we know it will cause us harm, our emotions override logic and reason and we pursue it still.
For me, spicy food is an example. When I was younger I ate it all the time, and had no problem doing so. I ate jars of chilli peppers as snacks, and devoured Madras that was so hot it was like microwaving lava on the sun - 10 points if you get that reference. Yet my tolerance for it has waned with age, much to my dismay. Despite the love of spicy food, and the happiness it gives me when eating it, what inevitably ensues causes quite a lot of pain now - quite literally physical pain. My constitution cannot handle it anymore. This isn't the only thing that I once enjoyed but now cannot tolerate. There was one infamous night where I took my love of Tequila too far and spent the rest of the early morning with my head in the bowl, that was many years ago and to this day if I drink any Tequila at all it goes down and then comes right back up.
Sooner or later you have to learn that even if your emotions are telling you yes, you have to accept the answer needs to be no, not because you want it to be, but because it has to be, or suffer the pain.
When it comes to love of people, both platonic and romantic, the same too applies. If we allow ourselves we will forever pursue that which is destructive, and our emotions will convince us time and again that it is the right thing to do, even when we know the pain will come. When love is destructive you have to ask yourself if you're willing to be destroyed in order to experience it. As I said, like, love, hate, and loathing all form part of the same scale, and they too form part of the same behavioural precedent. They can all be incredibly destructive to us, yet the desire to pursue them can be overwhelming, you have to ask yourself if it is worth it in the end.
Infinity
A while ago I wrote a post about Numerology and the affect on our lives that numbers have. There is another number that I did not mention in the post, it was one that I wanted to save to discuss in detail. It's not a rational number like 1, 2 and 3 etc, but an irrational number, that means it's precise value can never be stated. Some even argue it's not a number at all, I'm talking about Infinity.
Infinity is somewhat mystical in its nature. The concept is simple but complex at the same time. It is the highest number that can exist, but at the same time it is higher than any number that can exist and higher than that is equal to it. Therein lies the first paradoxical nature of infinity, part of the reason the infinity symbol itself is often used to represent a paradox - ∞
Infinity + 1 is equal to Infinity and Infinity - 1 is still equal to Infinity. It is a value that is forever changing and can never be changed. It is a concept that is easy to state but incredibly hard to actually imagine and conceptualize. What I find fascinating about this number and the effect it has on our lives is that it is often called upon to explain the unknown. Whenever we can't give a precise answer to any question we simply use infinity in its place. When we think of the possible outcomes of a give scenario and their probability, our first instinct when we can't rationalize the number of outcomes is to posit that there are an infinite number.
Whenever we create new concepts that need limitations to explain their boundaries we call upon it again to set a boundary that will be more than we ever need. Whether we can actually achieve such size and scale is irrelevant as by it's very nature the answer is no that we cannot, for even if we did reach a point named infinity, by its nature you would be able to continue moving beyond it without breaching it.
Still of all the concept persists to explain the limitations of things we can not know the limit of, for example the size of the Universe, something which we can not know due to the limits of our understanding, we simply conclude that the Universe is infinite, and yet ever expanding, however to be ever expanding there needs to be an outer boundary that is increasing and if such a boundary existed then the size of the Universe would not be infinite.
Infinity it seems is simply our way of saying "unknown" - the question is, why don't we just say that, we do we use the concept in an effort to give a definitive answer which is inherently something that cannot be definitive.
Infinity is somewhat mystical in its nature. The concept is simple but complex at the same time. It is the highest number that can exist, but at the same time it is higher than any number that can exist and higher than that is equal to it. Therein lies the first paradoxical nature of infinity, part of the reason the infinity symbol itself is often used to represent a paradox - ∞
Infinity + 1 is equal to Infinity and Infinity - 1 is still equal to Infinity. It is a value that is forever changing and can never be changed. It is a concept that is easy to state but incredibly hard to actually imagine and conceptualize. What I find fascinating about this number and the effect it has on our lives is that it is often called upon to explain the unknown. Whenever we can't give a precise answer to any question we simply use infinity in its place. When we think of the possible outcomes of a give scenario and their probability, our first instinct when we can't rationalize the number of outcomes is to posit that there are an infinite number.
Whenever we create new concepts that need limitations to explain their boundaries we call upon it again to set a boundary that will be more than we ever need. Whether we can actually achieve such size and scale is irrelevant as by it's very nature the answer is no that we cannot, for even if we did reach a point named infinity, by its nature you would be able to continue moving beyond it without breaching it.
Still of all the concept persists to explain the limitations of things we can not know the limit of, for example the size of the Universe, something which we can not know due to the limits of our understanding, we simply conclude that the Universe is infinite, and yet ever expanding, however to be ever expanding there needs to be an outer boundary that is increasing and if such a boundary existed then the size of the Universe would not be infinite.
Infinity it seems is simply our way of saying "unknown" - the question is, why don't we just say that, we do we use the concept in an effort to give a definitive answer which is inherently something that cannot be definitive.
Take a Break
The human brain is a wonderful thing, it is capable of so much, but most of what it can do is only possible when it is treated well. The human brain is one of the most masochistic creations in the Universe. Everything we say and do ultimately comes from our Brains, and every action we take that does harm to it is consequently an action that it caused to begin with. We can't do anything without using our brain to do it, so even when we harm our brains it is our brains themselves that are causing that harm.
Our brains seem to get bored with our senses very quickly however, with the ability to control what we do and do not feel, our senses are often numbed. When you experience something pleasurable it causes great pleasure initially but the more you do it the less potent it becomes until you reach a point where your brain isn't even paying attention anymore. This isn't limited to things that are good, it also applies to things that are bad, like pain, after a while you become numb to it.
It becomes necessary in almost everything we do, to take a break for a while, sometimes minutes, sometimes hours, even days or weeks are needed to reset our perception. We become numb to so much so quickly. Yet for some reason we are often reluctant to take that break, to step away for a while and let go of the things we have been doing in repetition. Our brains seem to love routine more than anything because it optimizes the way we process it over time until it does it without thinking about it much. Physical tasks can become so repetitive that we actually develop something that is referred to as "Muscle memory" - of course that's a figurative description, your muscles don't actually contain grey matter and don't actually hold memories, yet the term describes the peculiar ability to do something without thinking about it consciously, simply because you have done it so often.
Taking a break in order to "resensitize" ourselves becomes something that our brains it seems at times will fight against. It's interesting to ponder why that may be the case, maybe it is just a case of being less effort to have routine and predictability, or perhaps there is something more sinister at play, for example perhaps the experience of our senses is actually something traumatic for our brains to endure and predictability is a bastion of comfort.
Our brains seem to get bored with our senses very quickly however, with the ability to control what we do and do not feel, our senses are often numbed. When you experience something pleasurable it causes great pleasure initially but the more you do it the less potent it becomes until you reach a point where your brain isn't even paying attention anymore. This isn't limited to things that are good, it also applies to things that are bad, like pain, after a while you become numb to it.
It becomes necessary in almost everything we do, to take a break for a while, sometimes minutes, sometimes hours, even days or weeks are needed to reset our perception. We become numb to so much so quickly. Yet for some reason we are often reluctant to take that break, to step away for a while and let go of the things we have been doing in repetition. Our brains seem to love routine more than anything because it optimizes the way we process it over time until it does it without thinking about it much. Physical tasks can become so repetitive that we actually develop something that is referred to as "Muscle memory" - of course that's a figurative description, your muscles don't actually contain grey matter and don't actually hold memories, yet the term describes the peculiar ability to do something without thinking about it consciously, simply because you have done it so often.
Taking a break in order to "resensitize" ourselves becomes something that our brains it seems at times will fight against. It's interesting to ponder why that may be the case, maybe it is just a case of being less effort to have routine and predictability, or perhaps there is something more sinister at play, for example perhaps the experience of our senses is actually something traumatic for our brains to endure and predictability is a bastion of comfort.
For Argument's Sake
An argument in and of itself is to hold a position and make the case for that position, that is your argument. The word however has become synonymous with the exchange between two or more people who hold different positions and their attempts to make the case for their positions. Rather interestingly there are also same-side arguments which I find fascinating, where two people have the same position and yet they still find conflict between each other and try to defend themselves and their argument from a perceived attack even when in reality both are making the same argument they just don't recognise that fact.
Arguments in general are often created or exchanged in the pursuit of a settlement, an outcome that declares one side victorious. I've discussed the nature of debate before and how it differs from arguments in that it doesn't actually seek a resolution - at least not when done right. Arguments on the other hand seem to be a form of verbal warfare where one side must triumph over the other. It is rare for them to conclude in concessions that see a compromise on both sides, it is inevitable it seems that one side will be perceived to have won the most whilst giving the least ground.
What I do find interesting about the nature of arguments is that they can be had over almost anything and you can make a case for almost any position you want to hold. No matter how hopeless it may seem, if one is adept in the art-form one can make a convincing case. That in and of itself is rather disturbing. Further still it is often the case that arguments are had and continue to be made by people even when they realise they are in the wrong or that their position is not as they understood it to be, in those moments something peculiar happens, where the desire not to admit you are wrong overrides the desire to want to be wrong, and the result is that you pursue victory in the argument even when you have realised, privately, that you are in the wrong and that even if you were victorious it would be a detriment to you - also known as a Pyrrhic victory, named after King Pyrrhus who was victorious over the Romans but in victory lost almost everything to such an extent that losing would have actually been preferable.
Still of all the desire to be victorious overrides our judgement of what that would entail, none more frequent than when engaging in an argument. For an argument at its core is not a debate, it is not motivated by logic and reason, nor is it fought with method and rationale, but is instead motivated by emotion, and fought with passion. Right and Wrong have no bearing in an argument so if neither side can actually be right or wrong, that begs the question, what's the point in arguing?
Arguments in general are often created or exchanged in the pursuit of a settlement, an outcome that declares one side victorious. I've discussed the nature of debate before and how it differs from arguments in that it doesn't actually seek a resolution - at least not when done right. Arguments on the other hand seem to be a form of verbal warfare where one side must triumph over the other. It is rare for them to conclude in concessions that see a compromise on both sides, it is inevitable it seems that one side will be perceived to have won the most whilst giving the least ground.
What I do find interesting about the nature of arguments is that they can be had over almost anything and you can make a case for almost any position you want to hold. No matter how hopeless it may seem, if one is adept in the art-form one can make a convincing case. That in and of itself is rather disturbing. Further still it is often the case that arguments are had and continue to be made by people even when they realise they are in the wrong or that their position is not as they understood it to be, in those moments something peculiar happens, where the desire not to admit you are wrong overrides the desire to want to be wrong, and the result is that you pursue victory in the argument even when you have realised, privately, that you are in the wrong and that even if you were victorious it would be a detriment to you - also known as a Pyrrhic victory, named after King Pyrrhus who was victorious over the Romans but in victory lost almost everything to such an extent that losing would have actually been preferable.
Still of all the desire to be victorious overrides our judgement of what that would entail, none more frequent than when engaging in an argument. For an argument at its core is not a debate, it is not motivated by logic and reason, nor is it fought with method and rationale, but is instead motivated by emotion, and fought with passion. Right and Wrong have no bearing in an argument so if neither side can actually be right or wrong, that begs the question, what's the point in arguing?
I Didn't Think That Through
Honesty is a strange thing, it's a quality most people profess to have, but that can be hard to judge. Moreover it's a quality that most people profess to desire in others, but again, whether that profession is actually honest in and of itself is equally hard to judge.
When you choose to share what you think and what you feel with the entire world, there is a desire to be honest, open, and frank about what you think and what you feel. However, the truth is, most people don't want you to do that. Most people have an established set of beliefs that they have come to as the culmination of the life they have lived up until that point. It is incredibly rare to find someone who is actually willing to entertain your point of view when it has the potential to invalidate everything they think they know or think they have figured out, about the world. The truth is most people just want you to stroke their ego. Most people want you to take what they already believe, and reiterate it for their own validation. Most people aren't willing to even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.
Most people.
Some people don't have this mentality, but in my experience, these people are rare. I have had the pleasure of meeting a few in my time, and of those they became the closest friends with the deepest connections I have made, they have also become those most remarkably resilient to differences in opinion, even to the point of fundamental disagreement that debate is held on a purely intellectual level without ever affecting the emotional connection. This is something I would like to have with everyone in my life but I know that desire is unrealistic and on top of that I also know that there is truth in the idea that you really don't want to know what other people are thinking.
I write this blog, as I have said before, mainly as a form of self-therapy. It lets me process many things that are rolling around in my head. It lets me give form and structure and lets me take ideas that are persistently annoying me, write them down, and then let it go and move on with my life. What I find fascinating is the idea that other people actually want to read what is written here. That's not meant as a judgement of anyone reading this post, after all the reason it's here rather than just being saved on a hard drive somewhere is so that you can read it in the first place. What I mean instead, is that although this is self-therapy and although I do occasionally come back and read some posts, for the most part I do not. There are a plethora of posts on here now from a wide range of topics that I can't even recall with clarity - I rely on my own recollection when writing to jog my memory and look back to ensure I don't write about something I have already written about.
The fact that I can't even recall everything I have written on here just highlights something that is a peculiarity when it comes to the internet - that is the relevance of time. I don't mean in an Einsteinian sense, but rather, that content is often written in the context of the mindset I had in the moment of writing, which rarely persists longer than a few hours at most. Who I am today is not the person I was a week ago and is not the person I will be a week from now. Each post gives an insight into my mind, that much is clear, but it only ever gives you an insight into my mind at that point in time, it's not that easy to extrapolate that insight and form a more three-dimensional impression.
This isn't the post I was meant to publish today. In truth there are quite a few posts scheduled to publish on here [over 150 at present] some of them were written many months ago, some were written more recently. I have taken to reading some posts the day before they are set to publish, usually just for the sake of proofing them but sometimes out of genuine interest of the mindset they provide an insight into. The post that was scheduled to publish today has been deleted, the reason being it was a topic that I had not thought through, and in the time that has passed since it was written, a number of real world events have happened that were far too close to what I had written - make of that what you will, clairvoyance is a rabbit hole you should dive into some day, what you find when you do is fascinating. Regardless, given the real world events that have happened I decided to delete the post.
In life when people ask you to tell them the truth, you have to weigh up both sides before you answer, not only whether you actually want to be honest, but whether or not you think the other person can handle it. Sometimes it can be crystal clear to you before you say a word that they will not be receptive to what you have to say, so in truth, why bother?
When you choose to share what you think and what you feel with the entire world, there is a desire to be honest, open, and frank about what you think and what you feel. However, the truth is, most people don't want you to do that. Most people have an established set of beliefs that they have come to as the culmination of the life they have lived up until that point. It is incredibly rare to find someone who is actually willing to entertain your point of view when it has the potential to invalidate everything they think they know or think they have figured out, about the world. The truth is most people just want you to stroke their ego. Most people want you to take what they already believe, and reiterate it for their own validation. Most people aren't willing to even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.
Most people.
Some people don't have this mentality, but in my experience, these people are rare. I have had the pleasure of meeting a few in my time, and of those they became the closest friends with the deepest connections I have made, they have also become those most remarkably resilient to differences in opinion, even to the point of fundamental disagreement that debate is held on a purely intellectual level without ever affecting the emotional connection. This is something I would like to have with everyone in my life but I know that desire is unrealistic and on top of that I also know that there is truth in the idea that you really don't want to know what other people are thinking.
I write this blog, as I have said before, mainly as a form of self-therapy. It lets me process many things that are rolling around in my head. It lets me give form and structure and lets me take ideas that are persistently annoying me, write them down, and then let it go and move on with my life. What I find fascinating is the idea that other people actually want to read what is written here. That's not meant as a judgement of anyone reading this post, after all the reason it's here rather than just being saved on a hard drive somewhere is so that you can read it in the first place. What I mean instead, is that although this is self-therapy and although I do occasionally come back and read some posts, for the most part I do not. There are a plethora of posts on here now from a wide range of topics that I can't even recall with clarity - I rely on my own recollection when writing to jog my memory and look back to ensure I don't write about something I have already written about.
The fact that I can't even recall everything I have written on here just highlights something that is a peculiarity when it comes to the internet - that is the relevance of time. I don't mean in an Einsteinian sense, but rather, that content is often written in the context of the mindset I had in the moment of writing, which rarely persists longer than a few hours at most. Who I am today is not the person I was a week ago and is not the person I will be a week from now. Each post gives an insight into my mind, that much is clear, but it only ever gives you an insight into my mind at that point in time, it's not that easy to extrapolate that insight and form a more three-dimensional impression.
This isn't the post I was meant to publish today. In truth there are quite a few posts scheduled to publish on here [over 150 at present] some of them were written many months ago, some were written more recently. I have taken to reading some posts the day before they are set to publish, usually just for the sake of proofing them but sometimes out of genuine interest of the mindset they provide an insight into. The post that was scheduled to publish today has been deleted, the reason being it was a topic that I had not thought through, and in the time that has passed since it was written, a number of real world events have happened that were far too close to what I had written - make of that what you will, clairvoyance is a rabbit hole you should dive into some day, what you find when you do is fascinating. Regardless, given the real world events that have happened I decided to delete the post.
In life when people ask you to tell them the truth, you have to weigh up both sides before you answer, not only whether you actually want to be honest, but whether or not you think the other person can handle it. Sometimes it can be crystal clear to you before you say a word that they will not be receptive to what you have to say, so in truth, why bother?
Creative Intelligence
For the longest time one key distinction between humans and machines that set us apart was the innate human ability to create. Creativity was something which many people believed machines would never be able to mimic. However as technology has advanced and we have developed further understanding of neural networks, we have been able to create artificial intelligence agents that can take a wealth of art that has been created by humans throughout history, analyse it, and begin to create new works of art in similar styles that have never been seen before.
There is even an AI that can create photos of people that never existed, which is an incredible achievement considering this is not something humans can actually do. You can become adept at drawing faces and you can become quite skilled with photo editing software, but human beings for the most part are incapable of imagining faces that do not exist. Every single face you can imagine in your head right now is a memory of a person you once saw, whether you knew them or not, whether the memory is accurate or not. This is one of the limitations of the human mind. When it comes to being truly random, human beings are surprisingly incapable.
Take for example asking an individual to pick numbers at random. At first you might think it would be unlikely that you could tell which numbers they would pick, but that isn't the case. A deeper understanding of the statistics of probability, coupled with observations of a person's behaviours and habits, finally combined with cultural influences, can allow you to predict with accuracy what a person will choose. There is a famous mentalist in the UK called Derren Brown who made TV series based around this concept in which he performed a series of seemingly impossible tasks all centred around the apparent ability to read peoples' minds.
What is actually at work here are a number of principles, the first being Benford's Law which deals with the distribution of numbers in apparently random sets, the second is the Blue-Seven Phenomenon which is a statistical observation that the colour Blue, and the number seven, are the two most likely choices a person will make when asked to choose at random from a set that includes both of these. The point being, however irrational, unique, or unpredictable we like to think we are, the truth is we are not. The more people there are in the world and the more we are observed, the more accurately our behaviour can be predicted.
We have reached a point in our story of humanity and its love affair with AI where the entities we have created are beginning to outpace us not just in terms of processing power and intellect as has been the case for decades, but also in terms of exhibiting behaviours we long associated as distinctly human. We're at a crossroads now where the entities we have created might actually become more human-like than actual humans, whilst our understanding of humanity and its limitations is reducing humanity itself to a state of being that is more machine-like than the very entities we have created.
There is even an AI that can create photos of people that never existed, which is an incredible achievement considering this is not something humans can actually do. You can become adept at drawing faces and you can become quite skilled with photo editing software, but human beings for the most part are incapable of imagining faces that do not exist. Every single face you can imagine in your head right now is a memory of a person you once saw, whether you knew them or not, whether the memory is accurate or not. This is one of the limitations of the human mind. When it comes to being truly random, human beings are surprisingly incapable.
Take for example asking an individual to pick numbers at random. At first you might think it would be unlikely that you could tell which numbers they would pick, but that isn't the case. A deeper understanding of the statistics of probability, coupled with observations of a person's behaviours and habits, finally combined with cultural influences, can allow you to predict with accuracy what a person will choose. There is a famous mentalist in the UK called Derren Brown who made TV series based around this concept in which he performed a series of seemingly impossible tasks all centred around the apparent ability to read peoples' minds.
What is actually at work here are a number of principles, the first being Benford's Law which deals with the distribution of numbers in apparently random sets, the second is the Blue-Seven Phenomenon which is a statistical observation that the colour Blue, and the number seven, are the two most likely choices a person will make when asked to choose at random from a set that includes both of these. The point being, however irrational, unique, or unpredictable we like to think we are, the truth is we are not. The more people there are in the world and the more we are observed, the more accurately our behaviour can be predicted.
We have reached a point in our story of humanity and its love affair with AI where the entities we have created are beginning to outpace us not just in terms of processing power and intellect as has been the case for decades, but also in terms of exhibiting behaviours we long associated as distinctly human. We're at a crossroads now where the entities we have created might actually become more human-like than actual humans, whilst our understanding of humanity and its limitations is reducing humanity itself to a state of being that is more machine-like than the very entities we have created.
I never said that!
One of the biggest barriers to conflict resolution is understanding the argument that is being made. This might sound like a simple concept but in practise it is a lot more complex. When two people have an argument, each individual often forms an opinion of the other person and the argument they think they are trying to make, that opinion can cause them to fail to see the actual argument the other person is trying to make.
In order to understand an argument someone else is presenting, you not only need to listen to what they are saying, but you also need to understand the mindset of the person saying it, and know the limit to their level of communication. If the other person has poor communication skills, then you are much more likely to misunderstand the argument they are presenting, not because you don't understand what they are saying, but because the words they choose might not be the best way for them to explain the concept they have inside their head. The easiest way to overcome this communication barrier is to ask questions about the argument someone is presenting in order to give it more depth.
Probing an argument that you do not like or do not wish to accept can be difficult, there can be no desire to know more about another person's point of view. We rely heavily on opening arguments being an accurate representation of their point of view in much the same way as first impressions decide the bulk of how we view a person and interact with them going forward. When either side misunderstands the opening argument their opponent has made, resolution becomes much less likely as the two will likely descend into a scenario where both people argue against a hypothetical third person. That third person represents the proponent's erroneous understanding of their opponent's argument which neither actually agrees with. Conflict can become even more twisted if both parties misunderstand each other in which case a hypothetical fourth person is introduced representing the additional erroneous understanding.
When it comes to understanding one another, we have become surprisingly impatient. Our prejudice towards one another has been fed by the internet and by a growing tendency to encapsulate us within bubbles. Time was, a town or village or small populous was very tightly knit, very little changed, and everyone within the community knew everyone else. There was very little interaction with anyone outside of the community and this actively encouraged mistrust and the lack of exposure allowed misconceptions to go unchallenged and false beliefs eventually became cemented in the collective mentality of the community. Progress only came when society started to connect, when villages started interacting more with each other, when towns grew and new people came along and old prejudices were challenged through exposure and the eventual realisation that many of those beliefs had no founding in reality.
Then came the Internet. The World began to shrink. People thousands of miles away from one another could connect and speak as if they were in the same room. Unfortunately rather than accelerating progress, this actually enabled regression. By making it easier to connect with people anywhere in the world we were encouraged to connect with people we had something in common with. Instead of expanding our horizons and challenging our beliefs, the internet encouraged us to become insular once more and condensed us as a populous into clusters. Social media and online retailers encouraged profiling and actively sought to group people together based on their interests with the aim of making them easier to target in order to boost their sales. Social media sites encourage users to form bubbles and become isolated in clusters.
By creating a world where we come together so easily, we have created a world which divides us easily. Segregation is now the biggest problem online and it has already progressed to the point where differences in opinion have become so extreme that getting two people from opposing backgrounds to sit and have a conversation with one another is difficult. What we now need is a way to connect people who come from different backgrounds who actually want to bridge that divide. The biggest barrier now to achieving this is that each side holds a view of the other that is not accurate yet neither side is willing to admit that. Both sides are arguing with hypothetical third and fourth people, never taking the time to actually see the person on the other side, focusing only on what they think the other person is or what they think they represent.
In order to understand an argument someone else is presenting, you not only need to listen to what they are saying, but you also need to understand the mindset of the person saying it, and know the limit to their level of communication. If the other person has poor communication skills, then you are much more likely to misunderstand the argument they are presenting, not because you don't understand what they are saying, but because the words they choose might not be the best way for them to explain the concept they have inside their head. The easiest way to overcome this communication barrier is to ask questions about the argument someone is presenting in order to give it more depth.
Probing an argument that you do not like or do not wish to accept can be difficult, there can be no desire to know more about another person's point of view. We rely heavily on opening arguments being an accurate representation of their point of view in much the same way as first impressions decide the bulk of how we view a person and interact with them going forward. When either side misunderstands the opening argument their opponent has made, resolution becomes much less likely as the two will likely descend into a scenario where both people argue against a hypothetical third person. That third person represents the proponent's erroneous understanding of their opponent's argument which neither actually agrees with. Conflict can become even more twisted if both parties misunderstand each other in which case a hypothetical fourth person is introduced representing the additional erroneous understanding.
When it comes to understanding one another, we have become surprisingly impatient. Our prejudice towards one another has been fed by the internet and by a growing tendency to encapsulate us within bubbles. Time was, a town or village or small populous was very tightly knit, very little changed, and everyone within the community knew everyone else. There was very little interaction with anyone outside of the community and this actively encouraged mistrust and the lack of exposure allowed misconceptions to go unchallenged and false beliefs eventually became cemented in the collective mentality of the community. Progress only came when society started to connect, when villages started interacting more with each other, when towns grew and new people came along and old prejudices were challenged through exposure and the eventual realisation that many of those beliefs had no founding in reality.
Then came the Internet. The World began to shrink. People thousands of miles away from one another could connect and speak as if they were in the same room. Unfortunately rather than accelerating progress, this actually enabled regression. By making it easier to connect with people anywhere in the world we were encouraged to connect with people we had something in common with. Instead of expanding our horizons and challenging our beliefs, the internet encouraged us to become insular once more and condensed us as a populous into clusters. Social media and online retailers encouraged profiling and actively sought to group people together based on their interests with the aim of making them easier to target in order to boost their sales. Social media sites encourage users to form bubbles and become isolated in clusters.
By creating a world where we come together so easily, we have created a world which divides us easily. Segregation is now the biggest problem online and it has already progressed to the point where differences in opinion have become so extreme that getting two people from opposing backgrounds to sit and have a conversation with one another is difficult. What we now need is a way to connect people who come from different backgrounds who actually want to bridge that divide. The biggest barrier now to achieving this is that each side holds a view of the other that is not accurate yet neither side is willing to admit that. Both sides are arguing with hypothetical third and fourth people, never taking the time to actually see the person on the other side, focusing only on what they think the other person is or what they think they represent.
Detoxification
Detoxification, known informally as a detox, is the process of cleansing toxins, usually from the body. The process generally involves fasting, or going without certain foods, or in some cases it can involve eating or drinking certain things which you do not normally consume in your day to day diet. The ultimate goal of a detox is to give the body time to get rid of things which have built up, either on its own through its natural processes or with the aid of supplements or other remedies in order to encourage the process.
The concept of a detox isn't anything new, it's been around for centuries. You can even argue that it has been around for thousands of years if you include ancient practices such as blood letting - the act of draining away part of the blood from the body with the intent being that it will drain away toxins. Blood letting has widely been debunked as hokum by modern medical science and found in the vast majority of cases to actually cause harm to the patients to whom it was administered.
Nevertheless, the efficacy of the detoxification process in whatever form it is practised is mostly ignored, instead those who choose to go through a detox do so because of self-belief and their reasoning which leads them to conclude it must work. Our reasoning is sometimes flawed by cognitive bias, the easiest example to make is that you are just as likely to win the lottery with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as you are with any other six given random numbers, our cognitive bias fights against this statistical fact because it seems less likely to us. The same is true in reverse of the conclusions we draw when it comes to detoxes - we believe we are more likely to succeed if we make a change than if we make none at all, regardless of the underlying statistics.
I am not saying that a detox can't be beneficial to an individual, my point is if you return to the same practises after the detox is complete then there is no net benefit to you as an individual. Most things we choose to detox from, like alcohol, or junk food, or any other vice you indulge in regularly, cause damage to our bodies that won't be repaired in one or two months going without them. Our health may indeed marginally improve in that time but if you revert to the same practise at the end of the detox period that progress will be lost. In fact in some cases the things we indulge in regularly have a physiological impact on our bodies known as tolerance, where our bodies build up a resistance to something that is harmful that we are exposed to regularly. When it comes to tolerance, this is surprisingly less resilient. Our bodies abandon this line of defence when it is determined to no longer be needed. The consequence then at the end of the detox period is that the vice we indulge in causes far greater harm than it did in the first place.
Alcohol is a prime example. Over time you develop a tolerance to alcohol based on how much and how often you drink it. Take a long period such as a month or two without any at all and when you return to consuming it that tolerance falls quite low and takes some time to build up again. This isn't limited to the mental effects of alcohol such as the feeling of inebriation, but also applies to the physiological effects - our stomachs and our bodies in general, find it harder to process things we have gone without for some time.
Still of all, we perpetuate the idea that going without something for a period of time will make us better able to control ourselves when we reintroduce it. I don't believe that is true personally in fact I think the opposite is true, like someone who goes to a gym regularly and getting a pizza on their way home because they "earned it" I think most people after a detox period would feel emboldened to further indulge. I guess the only conclusion I can draw about why we actually try to detox is because we want to feel better about our behaviour - more in a mental sense and emotional sense than the actual physical benefit of a detox.
I should point out if you do like to detox from anything, I am not trying to discourage you, I openly admit I do it myself and have done with many different things, mainly take out, fizzy drinks, caffeine etc but in all of these cases after the detox period ended I went right back to eating and drinking everything I did before and it had no overall impact on the rate of consumption in the long term. This whole post is simply an exploration of the actual motivation behind the desire to detox and why I think despite doing it many times myself, it's not really worth it in the end. It's January at the moment and it is perhaps the time of year when our attempts to alter our behaviour are most prevalent, the real question isn't what you have given up for January, or attempted to give up entirely, but rather, what long term change are you trying to enact, what are the motivations and objectives that inspired that change in the first place and if that detox didn't achieve either of those things, what else could you do that might? Or will you just give up after you fall at the first hurdle and revert to your original behaviour as so many of us - myself included - inevitably end up doing.
The concept of a detox isn't anything new, it's been around for centuries. You can even argue that it has been around for thousands of years if you include ancient practices such as blood letting - the act of draining away part of the blood from the body with the intent being that it will drain away toxins. Blood letting has widely been debunked as hokum by modern medical science and found in the vast majority of cases to actually cause harm to the patients to whom it was administered.
Nevertheless, the efficacy of the detoxification process in whatever form it is practised is mostly ignored, instead those who choose to go through a detox do so because of self-belief and their reasoning which leads them to conclude it must work. Our reasoning is sometimes flawed by cognitive bias, the easiest example to make is that you are just as likely to win the lottery with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as you are with any other six given random numbers, our cognitive bias fights against this statistical fact because it seems less likely to us. The same is true in reverse of the conclusions we draw when it comes to detoxes - we believe we are more likely to succeed if we make a change than if we make none at all, regardless of the underlying statistics.
I am not saying that a detox can't be beneficial to an individual, my point is if you return to the same practises after the detox is complete then there is no net benefit to you as an individual. Most things we choose to detox from, like alcohol, or junk food, or any other vice you indulge in regularly, cause damage to our bodies that won't be repaired in one or two months going without them. Our health may indeed marginally improve in that time but if you revert to the same practise at the end of the detox period that progress will be lost. In fact in some cases the things we indulge in regularly have a physiological impact on our bodies known as tolerance, where our bodies build up a resistance to something that is harmful that we are exposed to regularly. When it comes to tolerance, this is surprisingly less resilient. Our bodies abandon this line of defence when it is determined to no longer be needed. The consequence then at the end of the detox period is that the vice we indulge in causes far greater harm than it did in the first place.
Alcohol is a prime example. Over time you develop a tolerance to alcohol based on how much and how often you drink it. Take a long period such as a month or two without any at all and when you return to consuming it that tolerance falls quite low and takes some time to build up again. This isn't limited to the mental effects of alcohol such as the feeling of inebriation, but also applies to the physiological effects - our stomachs and our bodies in general, find it harder to process things we have gone without for some time.
Still of all, we perpetuate the idea that going without something for a period of time will make us better able to control ourselves when we reintroduce it. I don't believe that is true personally in fact I think the opposite is true, like someone who goes to a gym regularly and getting a pizza on their way home because they "earned it" I think most people after a detox period would feel emboldened to further indulge. I guess the only conclusion I can draw about why we actually try to detox is because we want to feel better about our behaviour - more in a mental sense and emotional sense than the actual physical benefit of a detox.
I should point out if you do like to detox from anything, I am not trying to discourage you, I openly admit I do it myself and have done with many different things, mainly take out, fizzy drinks, caffeine etc but in all of these cases after the detox period ended I went right back to eating and drinking everything I did before and it had no overall impact on the rate of consumption in the long term. This whole post is simply an exploration of the actual motivation behind the desire to detox and why I think despite doing it many times myself, it's not really worth it in the end. It's January at the moment and it is perhaps the time of year when our attempts to alter our behaviour are most prevalent, the real question isn't what you have given up for January, or attempted to give up entirely, but rather, what long term change are you trying to enact, what are the motivations and objectives that inspired that change in the first place and if that detox didn't achieve either of those things, what else could you do that might? Or will you just give up after you fall at the first hurdle and revert to your original behaviour as so many of us - myself included - inevitably end up doing.
The Original Version
There have been many books in our house over the years, but the one that I found most interesting was an illustrated collection of fairy tales by the brothers Grimm. The book had about size 14 font, about A5 sized pages, and was over 300 pages long. Even at that I am not sure the book was a complete collection of their work. For one, most of the stories attributed to the brothers Grimm weren't actually imagined by them, but rather were documentations of stories that were common of the era, with their goal to catalogue them all.
One thing I do not like is the tag line that is often placed on movies and TV shows that take fairy tales and depict them as something sinister, and describe them as "a new more darker twist" or those that claim such versions as "reimagined" or "reinterpretation" of these stories. I don't like this because it implies that the happy, sunshine filled, rainbow worlds of children's fairy tales that the likes of Disney have portrayed are the original ideas and the intended emotions. They are not. The original tales as were recounted and gathered by the brothers Grimm were incredibly dark and at times truly sadistic. It is the idea of sunshine and rainbows that is the reimagination and reinterpretation of the original ideas.
Take for example the tale of Snow White, whilst the version that is recounted by Disney is family friendly, the original is not. From cannibalism, bondage, torture, and ultimately death, the original tale is actually quite dark. The most graphic portion of all those which Disney chose to omit perhaps comes at the wedding of Snow White and her Prince where a pair of iron slippers were heated over red hot coals, which her step mother was made to wear and dance before them until she died for their amusement.
There are over two hundred tales in the collection we own, a modern publication no more than a few decades old, although another collection once existed in our family, it belonged to my Grandmother, written in German it was about half the length and was a lot older at least by a hundred years. Whatever happened to it I am unsure, after my Grandmother passed away I don't know what happened to her belongings.
I am much more a fan of the original tales than the watered down family friendly versions that exist today. Perhaps because many of the originals were not intended for children at all but for adults to read, this maybe explains why I find them more interesting than those aimed at children. Either way I don't like the idea of losing history and losing origins. When things become such a part of our culture and society and become so heavily associated with one person, or one company, the origin is often lost. Who wrote them first is forgotten. Like a cover of a track that sells much more than the original you often see surprise in peoples' faces when you tell them it was not the original version. Like "I Will Always Love You" most often attributed to Whitney Houston in reality it is a song written by Dolly Parton almost two decades prior.
I am not discounting the merit of reinterpretation, simply the acknowledgement of, or at least the desire to acknowledge, that which came before. By all means improve upon existing ideas and retell stories for modern audiences, but do not deny history, do not write off those who came before and dismiss the effort they put into their work and the merit it gained, for without it you would not have the idea to rework in the first place.
One thing I do not like is the tag line that is often placed on movies and TV shows that take fairy tales and depict them as something sinister, and describe them as "a new more darker twist" or those that claim such versions as "reimagined" or "reinterpretation" of these stories. I don't like this because it implies that the happy, sunshine filled, rainbow worlds of children's fairy tales that the likes of Disney have portrayed are the original ideas and the intended emotions. They are not. The original tales as were recounted and gathered by the brothers Grimm were incredibly dark and at times truly sadistic. It is the idea of sunshine and rainbows that is the reimagination and reinterpretation of the original ideas.
Take for example the tale of Snow White, whilst the version that is recounted by Disney is family friendly, the original is not. From cannibalism, bondage, torture, and ultimately death, the original tale is actually quite dark. The most graphic portion of all those which Disney chose to omit perhaps comes at the wedding of Snow White and her Prince where a pair of iron slippers were heated over red hot coals, which her step mother was made to wear and dance before them until she died for their amusement.
There are over two hundred tales in the collection we own, a modern publication no more than a few decades old, although another collection once existed in our family, it belonged to my Grandmother, written in German it was about half the length and was a lot older at least by a hundred years. Whatever happened to it I am unsure, after my Grandmother passed away I don't know what happened to her belongings.
I am much more a fan of the original tales than the watered down family friendly versions that exist today. Perhaps because many of the originals were not intended for children at all but for adults to read, this maybe explains why I find them more interesting than those aimed at children. Either way I don't like the idea of losing history and losing origins. When things become such a part of our culture and society and become so heavily associated with one person, or one company, the origin is often lost. Who wrote them first is forgotten. Like a cover of a track that sells much more than the original you often see surprise in peoples' faces when you tell them it was not the original version. Like "I Will Always Love You" most often attributed to Whitney Houston in reality it is a song written by Dolly Parton almost two decades prior.
I am not discounting the merit of reinterpretation, simply the acknowledgement of, or at least the desire to acknowledge, that which came before. By all means improve upon existing ideas and retell stories for modern audiences, but do not deny history, do not write off those who came before and dismiss the effort they put into their work and the merit it gained, for without it you would not have the idea to rework in the first place.
You Look Familiar
There's a Youtuber I like to watch who I must admit the reason I first took interest in him was because he looked just like a guy I went to University with. Said University friend I had a massive crush on, which we both acted upon and in hindsight that was probably a bad idea given the circumstances, if things had been different perhaps it could have worked out, but it didn't. I'm being very simplified in this summary for the sake of brevity, the whole experience actually lasted two years and was such a maelstrom of angst and depression and sexualised tension that it ended up being one of the most tumultuous periods of my life. As I said though if circumstances had been different things might have worked out. This Youtuber is the spitting image of what he looked like whilst said friend looks nothing like that now.
I must admit the appeal at first was purely superficial, how he looked reminded me of the innocence I felt when I first saw this guy and part of me wanted to relive that feeling of liking someone without anything complicating things. I should point out I've never met this Youtuber and I probably never will, and beyond a few comments I've left on his videos I doubt he even knows I exist, but that's ok, that's not the point. I've made no attempt to actually connect with this person, I just like the way seeing him makes me feel. After a while watching his videos I took a genuine interest in his content, that's primarily why I am still subscribed. His personality is nothing like the guy I knew which is a relief in many ways because it prevents you from falling into that trap of imagining someone is someone they are not.
I find this idea fascinating though, the thought that you can't have someone in particular so you create a template of them encompassing all that you like about them and what appeals and then try to fit it to someone else. Indulging my ego for a moment I do wonder if anyone has done that with me, created a template from me and sought out someone else that fit it - that's quite comical to me not because I think it would be impossible to find someone just like me, it probably is, we're not as unique as we like to think, but no, rather I find it comical the idea that they might actually succeed in finding someone that is as like me as you can get. I find that humorous because to be honest when I look for a guy, in many ways I look for guys that are nothing like me. I know that might sound self-deprecating but the thing is, I don't think you can ever succeed in a relationship with someone you are too similar to or who shares the same weaknesses as you. Most of the guys I've got to know turned out to be too much like me that's why it never worked out with any of them.
I guess you could boil this down to the idea of "types" when it comes to dating and say that fitting a template is really an act of pursuing a specific type. The trouble with that is just like the Youtuber I watch, the way someone looks is not a reliable indicator of their personality or anything else about them. They say you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, and while that sentiment isn't always true, in this case it is. You can't reliably use the way people look as a method of finding people that fit a desired personality, it's even debatable whether you should actually be trying to narrow down potential partners based on personality at all but we can save that for another day.
Still the question remains, why are we attracted to the familiar, what we know, and what we have already experienced. Is our desire to remain in our comfort zone that strong that it influences who we are attracted to and guides us back to where we started?
I must admit the appeal at first was purely superficial, how he looked reminded me of the innocence I felt when I first saw this guy and part of me wanted to relive that feeling of liking someone without anything complicating things. I should point out I've never met this Youtuber and I probably never will, and beyond a few comments I've left on his videos I doubt he even knows I exist, but that's ok, that's not the point. I've made no attempt to actually connect with this person, I just like the way seeing him makes me feel. After a while watching his videos I took a genuine interest in his content, that's primarily why I am still subscribed. His personality is nothing like the guy I knew which is a relief in many ways because it prevents you from falling into that trap of imagining someone is someone they are not.
I find this idea fascinating though, the thought that you can't have someone in particular so you create a template of them encompassing all that you like about them and what appeals and then try to fit it to someone else. Indulging my ego for a moment I do wonder if anyone has done that with me, created a template from me and sought out someone else that fit it - that's quite comical to me not because I think it would be impossible to find someone just like me, it probably is, we're not as unique as we like to think, but no, rather I find it comical the idea that they might actually succeed in finding someone that is as like me as you can get. I find that humorous because to be honest when I look for a guy, in many ways I look for guys that are nothing like me. I know that might sound self-deprecating but the thing is, I don't think you can ever succeed in a relationship with someone you are too similar to or who shares the same weaknesses as you. Most of the guys I've got to know turned out to be too much like me that's why it never worked out with any of them.
I guess you could boil this down to the idea of "types" when it comes to dating and say that fitting a template is really an act of pursuing a specific type. The trouble with that is just like the Youtuber I watch, the way someone looks is not a reliable indicator of their personality or anything else about them. They say you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, and while that sentiment isn't always true, in this case it is. You can't reliably use the way people look as a method of finding people that fit a desired personality, it's even debatable whether you should actually be trying to narrow down potential partners based on personality at all but we can save that for another day.
Still the question remains, why are we attracted to the familiar, what we know, and what we have already experienced. Is our desire to remain in our comfort zone that strong that it influences who we are attracted to and guides us back to where we started?
Not What You Expected
I would write a post about New Year's Resolutions but I think my Christmas post pretty much covered what I hope for the future so I'll pass on that one. Instead I'd like to impart some wisdom - if it qualifies as such.
If you're reading this, you're alive. You're not dead. Those sound like simple statements to make but they're facts we tend to forget at times. There's a Nikki Minaj song, 'Moment 4 Life' where one of the lyrics read "To live doesn't mean you're alive" - I like that lyric because it makes you think about what it actually means to be alive. If you're alive you have a life you can live, so live it. If you have a life to live, don't let the pressures of life, and everything that can make you feel down, stop you from living your life.
There's a lot wrong with the world. There's a lot of things that could go wrong with it. Both of these things are undoubtedly true, but if you let these two facts stop you from living your life then you're already dead. You might still be breathing but you're not doing much else. You can't live life in fear of what might be, what might happen. If you do then you'll deny yourself so much because of something that might not even happen. Don't let yourself look back in decades to come and regret the things you should have done or would have done given the chance again. Don't let yourself look back and think that you were so worried about something happening that in the end never happened. Even if the things you worry about really do happen, anticipating pain is like enduring it twice. The prick of a needle is hardly ever as bad as you think it will be, the vast majority of the time you never even feel it, what you built it up to be in your mind was so much worse than the reality.
We all know that the things we long for and desire and build up in our minds rarely turn out to be as good as we anticipated them to be, whilst that can be disheartening you can turn it on its head and use it as justification to ignore the things you would normally worry about - knowing that you're actually not that good at predicting the future and that experiencing things in your mind before they happen really is a fool's errand.
So as you sit today the first of the year and plan out all the things you want to achieve in the coming year, hold onto that belief that no matter how bad you dream the future to be, it won't be as bad as you think. You'll survive, and you'll look back on it wondering why you were so worked up over it to begin with.
Happy New Year!
If you're reading this, you're alive. You're not dead. Those sound like simple statements to make but they're facts we tend to forget at times. There's a Nikki Minaj song, 'Moment 4 Life' where one of the lyrics read "To live doesn't mean you're alive" - I like that lyric because it makes you think about what it actually means to be alive. If you're alive you have a life you can live, so live it. If you have a life to live, don't let the pressures of life, and everything that can make you feel down, stop you from living your life.
There's a lot wrong with the world. There's a lot of things that could go wrong with it. Both of these things are undoubtedly true, but if you let these two facts stop you from living your life then you're already dead. You might still be breathing but you're not doing much else. You can't live life in fear of what might be, what might happen. If you do then you'll deny yourself so much because of something that might not even happen. Don't let yourself look back in decades to come and regret the things you should have done or would have done given the chance again. Don't let yourself look back and think that you were so worried about something happening that in the end never happened. Even if the things you worry about really do happen, anticipating pain is like enduring it twice. The prick of a needle is hardly ever as bad as you think it will be, the vast majority of the time you never even feel it, what you built it up to be in your mind was so much worse than the reality.
We all know that the things we long for and desire and build up in our minds rarely turn out to be as good as we anticipated them to be, whilst that can be disheartening you can turn it on its head and use it as justification to ignore the things you would normally worry about - knowing that you're actually not that good at predicting the future and that experiencing things in your mind before they happen really is a fool's errand.
So as you sit today the first of the year and plan out all the things you want to achieve in the coming year, hold onto that belief that no matter how bad you dream the future to be, it won't be as bad as you think. You'll survive, and you'll look back on it wondering why you were so worked up over it to begin with.
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)