Grasping, and Then Waking Up

Vol. 1 Issue 16

I spent the better part of my blog writing time for this week working on a very short story that I hoped to have ready for today, but I couldn’t finish it in time, so, instead I have only a few short sentences, a feeble fulfillment of my weekly obligation to this blog.

Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club asks, “If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person.” This is what I wonder as I enter my second semester of a potentially pointless master’s degree, while laying the foundation for the application process to a maybe even more useless PhD. Can I go to bed tonight an ambitious, creative, but truthfully unskilled person and wake up tomorrow an easily employable engineer, or an eager med student?

The more I think about spending so much time working at something that is designed to lead in one direction, a place I don’t want to end up, specifically working in academia, teaching, the more I doubt the purpose of the pursuit. They say that you have to “do what you love,” but who the fuck are “they” anyway?

What if you love what do for a while, like, as you spend an important chunk of your life learning, thinking and studying it, then, you spend the rest of your time using what you have learned in a way you don’t love? Is this all part of it?

Does doing what you love really exist anyway? Who invented this deceitful maxim? I think it’s more harmful than anything, planting the seed of a unattainable perfect career. It’s seems impossible that even a small percentage of world’s people end up doing what they really want to be doing. I bet most people don’t even know what they want but have adjusted what they have to fit the “what they want” mold.

I have not given up on my educational pursuit, but I’m still searching. I still have hope that there is a job for someone with tons of education in very a specific area, even if the stats show otherwise.

Well, next week I should have the beginnings of a short story to share, so until then….

Answering All the Wrong Questions

Vol. 1 Issue 15

Everyone has heard of Writer’s Block right? I never really used to believe in such a thing. I thought that having Writer’s Block just meant that the person writing wasn’t motivated enough to come up with something to write, that they were either lazy or unorganized. I think I stole this idea from some famous writer, maybe Stephen King- that if you sit in front of the screen/typewriter/blank sheet long enough and write words, any words, eventually you will come up with something of value. Well, I was wrong. It is so much more complicated than this.

There are many layers of Writer’s block, everything from the one absolute extreme of a very motivated person whose has an actual inability to think of anything to write, I guess this would be the traditional kind of WB that most people think of, then, say on the other extreme, there would be a totally lazy person who does have something to write, but does not, because they are lazy. This second case may not seem like traditional WB to you, but rather just laziness. But I don’t know…I don’t think it’s that simple.

Unfortunately, questioning WB brings the real nature of laziness and motivation into question, like, are there such things as pure laziness and/or pure motivation devoid of personal circumstance, or are they always connected? Or is it possible that laziness could just be so innate in a person such that they would be lazy under almost all circumstances? (I say most because even the laziness person would not likely be lazy in a life-or-death situation like in a warring country, while being robbed, or while their apartment was on fire while they were inside). Or is laziness a syndrome, a culmination of factors that an unlazy person can “catch” and suffer from? The same types of questions could be posed towards motivation.

Just to reiterate, the question I really wanted to deal here was: What is Writer’s Block? But in dealing with the particulars of WB unfortunately I have created a subcategory question that I now have to deal with regarding the nature of laziness and motivation. I really did not want to deal with this subcategory, but what can I say, I brought it on myself, sigh.

I consider myself a fairly motivated person, but this motivation varies from time to time. I’m more motivated when I’m hungry, but not starving. After I eat a big meal, I’m lazy. Obviously the laziness is a side effect of having eaten in this case, but not all cases are this simple.

Could a truly motivated person just wake up one day lazy for no reason? Yes, for many good reasons actually such as a clinical depression or a chemical imbalance in the brain, due to bereavement, physical illness or injury. But these are legit reasons, and behavior under such personal circumstances can’t really be considered lazy, even if it appears to be identical to laziness, and it produces the same results.

Ok, how about some real life, not-so-legit examples.

Q.-What about a poor, yet motivated person who wins the lottery, becomes rich, and then becomes lazy?

A.-This would be an example of a most common phenomenon, a motivated person becoming lazy because their circumstances haved allowed it.

Q.-So was this person a truly lazy person from the outset, only that before they won the lottery they were too poor to be lazy, and thus just seemed motivated because they had to make ends meet?

A.-Difficult to truly prove, but yes. This is proven true because there must be some lottery winners who were motivated before winning the lottery and continued to remain motivated even after winning.

Q.-What about the laziest couch potato who through sheer power of will (motivation) rises to becomes C.E.O of a Blue Chip Multi-National?

A.-Impossible to answer. It’s never happened

Q.-Ok, what about the laziest couch potato who lived on a trust fund, but that trust fund has since run out and all sources of income have become exhausted? Say this person gets their act together, due at first due to necessity, but then through motivation rises to C.E.O, then what?

A.-Did the couch potato have a college degree already?

Q.-That’s not an answer, but no, they did not.

A.-I ask because many lazy trust-funders still somehow make it through college. Hmmm, this is a hard one because it is so uncommon. In the past it was likely that once the couch potato’s trust fund ran out he would get a job at a record or video store. Since these days neither of these jobs exist I suppose anything is possible. The couch potato would almost certainly first have to go to college if they were ever to have a shot at C.E.O. There is so much red tape and expense involved in going to college that if the couch potato managed to enroll themselves in college, finish, and then rise to the C.E.O. position I suppose this would be an example of a lazy person becoming extremely motivated. This would be an extremely rare case.

Q.-What about losing motivation during overcast skies?

A-This would fall under depression, and is common in many people. Unless it is clinical, this in my opinion does not count as a legit reason for being lazy

Q.-Since when does your opinion count?

A.- Since now. No more questions.

So in conclusion, having said absolutely nothing, yet written plenty or words, I think I have demonstrated a variation on the traditional notion of Writer’s Block. Today’s blog is an example of sitting in front of the screen for a long time, yet not coming up with anything of value. Take that Stephen King.

It is Monday. My blog needed to be written. My readers demanded it dammit. This is what they pay me for!

Can I Get A RaMen?

Vol. 1 Issue 14

To declare yourself dissolved of your chosen big monotheistic religion would be blasphemy in most cases, like if you were a good Christian and then you became an Atheist, that would most likely be grounds for going to Hell, at least I’m guessing so. I don’t know if such a thing as a Christian-type Hell, with the fire and the brimstone exists in Islam, but I imagine to dissent from Islam would be even worse for your chances of achieving eternal bliss than dissenting from Christianity. In my last post I mentioned that I was not religious person. Now that I think of it, this was just a blatant lie, not a purposeful one with any malicious intent, no, I had just forgotten my about my faith. Luckily, the religion that I have chosen to embrace whole-heartedly does not have a Hell, nor can one commit blasphemy within it. As they may say in Christianity, I had lost my way, or strayed from the path, but just temporarily. In my religion losing one’s way is allowed, even for extended periods, even semi-forever. It is time for me to welcome you to the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism.

At first what may seem like a joke, partially because it has a funny name, and partially because it just seems utterly ridiculous to have a theory of divine rule and universal creation that involves a divine Spaghetti Monster, this will soon be proven to be quite the opposite. This is no joke, and once the parameters of the religion are explained it will be shown how Pastafarianism proves it is the one true religion with facts, and even some graphs.

For example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) created the world and universe a few thousand years ago, but manipulated the science behind everything to make it seem like it is actually billions. First he created firmament (heaven), but this was too confusing a name, so move that upwards then he recreated another place called land, which was much easier to remember. He decided to live on the firmament because he had already installed a stripper factory and a beer volcano there, but He is still very much actively involved in earthly affairs. A direct quote from the FSM’S main prophet, Bobby, “Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.”

The FSM is not a vengeful God. Many Pastafarians do not literally even believe in the FSM Himself but view Him more symbolically. I for one think this is nonsense, and that there really is an FSM, but part of the Pastafarian faith is allowing anyone to interpret the scriptures any way they choose. The FSM allows and encourages people form other religions to join the flock. One does not even have to convert completely, but can be simultaneously a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, and a Pastafarian. Unfortunately, in many religions worshipping more than one God is grounds for eternal damnation, but not here it isn’t.

Okay, time for some facts: The chosen people of the FSM, much like the chosen people of the Old Testament were the Israelites, were pirates. We believe that pirates were once jolly, peaceful explorers forced into lives of crime and treachery through Christian persecution. There is also hard evidence that correlates the dwindling numbers of pirates with global warming (that is the old style Captain Jack Sparrow-type of pirate, not the automatic weapon toting new style like in Somalia). Their heyday being the 1600-1800s, studies show the fewer pirates, the hotter the planet. This is fact. See graph below:

So you might be thinking, “Chris here has provided hard evidence, and a graph, for the existence of the FSM and yet this just seems to ridiculous too be true.” Well, it is no more ridiculous than any of the historical scriptures of mainstream religions i.e. a never consumed, speaking burning bushes, various Seas parting and various city walls falling to the ground miraculously, or God speaking to certain people called prophets yet these people not being considered schizophrenic. Pastafarianism has miracles, creation theory, and plenty of facts that explain how the FSM created the universe, etc, etc, etc. The main thing we lack as a religion is a history. Although Pastafarianism is a few hundred years old, it was only recently, in 2005 to be exact that the religion came into full fruition. Considering Pastafarianism's unprejudiced, open-mined, progressive beliefs system, the fact that so far there have been exactly zero deaths committed in the name of the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster, plus our ability to explain the universe and existence just as thoroughly as any other religion, check back in a few thousand years time and then we’ll see what’s ridiculous and what is not. 

RaMen

For more info visit http://www.venganza.org. To donate to the Church of the FSM you just can just forward me the money and I’ll make sure it gets to the appropriate governing body.

Elegy For A Young Canadian

Vol. 1 Issue 13

When events that we humans classify as tragic occur there are those of us, that is to say nearly everyone, that look to an outside force, an entity, a divine being, something greater than ourselves whom is perhaps responsible for the tragedy at hand. We look for guidance. Some look to a god, Biblical, Koranic, Talmudic to try to make sense of something that is completely senseless, at least seemingly senseless to us, and so we search. I am not a religious person. I’m actually the farthest thing from it, and so I look to other sources to try and sort out this senselessness; My Aunt, mother of two, wife, sister and daughter, Pamela Doyle was taken from this world on Saturday January 5^th, the world of our humanly senses, and moved on into the next.

Our abilities to reason, our rationale: As humans we are flawed. We are designed to process things only in certain way and these abilities seemingly fail us when put to the test. It’s like we’ve been given the wrong tools for the job, and left without an instruction manual.  

Philosophy is how I deal. I’ve being reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and realizing just how unprepared we are to deal with so many situations that we encounter, like tragedy. Kant talks about all the things we think we know about the world and objects within it, and then he asks: how do we know these things? Well, the answer is usually easy enough, we know the world through or senses (empirically). We know the sky is blue because we can see it is blue. This sensory perception though is only that, our ability to perceive the external world and process it, as we are able to.

Kant thinks there must be more than that. The sky that I see and refer to as blue may not be the same blue to you, it may in fact be what I would call red, but somewhere, beneath our perceptions blue is blue, regardless of how we perceive it, name it, refer to it, or acknowledge it.

There are entire sets of principles and concepts though that we know intrinsically (á priori), not having gained the knowledge of them though our senses or our experiences, time and space for example. Kant says about time: it is a pure intuition. It exists, and would exist regardless of our observation of it. He says that time is pure in that it is not subject to our unreliable sensory observations.

We humans have this conception that time is successive, that time occurs and passes in a straight line, one segment of time after another but time, I think, is linked, intertwined directly with the notion of change: as time passes things change. Change seems to be successive and this is how we measure time.

We are able to somehow know this intrinsically, that things change with time, but we have no evidence that time itself moves in a line forward. Remove change from the equation and what evidence do we have that time moves straight? Kant says, “Different times are merely one and the same time.”

So why are we are able to perceive and use our sense of reason to deduce knowledge of the universe, and then, once we take it all in, have no idea how to comprehend it? Why is our sense of reason so fucked-up?

I am not in any position to answer this. Who even knows what “life” is, and this biological phenomenon that we have called consciousness doesn’t even equip us with the tools to deal with occurrences that are as standard to human existence as natural laws and gravity are to the cosmos.

What the heck am I talking about? It means that we are ill equipped to deal with anything outside of what our senses can account for: Life and Death.

We are born, we live, and then we die. This is common knowledge, yet we still have no way to perceive what happens after death. All we are equipped with are measly five senses, and no Kantian intrinsic, á priori knowledge, and so, we can are left to try and fill in the gaps with our intuition, or emotions, our longing, our imagination, everything that is strictly human; we try to make order out of chaos.

Even looking to religion: Jesus, a divine being thrust into this human world, having taken a human form, and with this a set of human senses, hang dying, confused, unable to comprehend His circumstances proclaimed, In the Ninth Hour, just as He was about to depart from this human world and enter His true domain of heaven, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus, a god in human form, prophesied his own death it in all four of the Gospels, knew He would die, not just as all humans do, but actually knew exactly how and when from the start, and even He, Jesus Christ, felt abandoned by his God when His sun set. What are we regular humans supposed to do then?

A more comforting thought comes from Saint John. As Jesus is being lead away He turns and proclaims to his disciples “but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you” (John 16:22).

So Pam, although you have left this world, the only world that our humble senses can unmask, and have moved into another realm, a realm where our abilities of rationale and reason fail us, a realm where we cannot yet follow you, these are our flaws: The flaws of the living. The flaws of this world. These are not your flaws.

You deserved to die about as much as Christ did, taken too soon, for reasons unjust, and so, I believe that whether it is in a heavenly palace where our hearts shall be reunited, or in the spinning sands of Pure Kantian Time, we will rejoice. Amen.

Pamela Edith Doyle 1962-2013