This blog was originally intended to keep track of my head and practice in something I've always loved to do: write. It was practice that I definitely needed based on the syntax of that last sentence. But nevertheless, I proceeded to build my hopes too high and write a mostly intellectual blog with Yu-Hsuan. This led to the decision that I should only posts eloquent and entertaining enough to captivate. This inevitably led to procrastination and an eventual death to this blog, as we stopped having classes to force us to write about our ideas.
I have also started a wide variety of projects of things that I have wanted to do for quite some time. In 5th grade, I wrote an entire kid's book similar to Captain Underpants in the hopes of some day publishing the book and becoming rich so that my parent's could retire and be happy. I wrote the whole thing and was trying to figure out copyright law as a 10 year old before my dad told me how unlikely it would be that I would succeed. I immediately stopped dreaming.
When I tried to learn guitar, I played every day for an hour for three days. I learned 5 or 6 chords and a simple version of Blackbird. I now pick up the guitar every few months and practice the chords I know so that when I do gain some initiative backed by serious commitment I'll be three hours ahead of the game.
When I tried to learn Spanish, I started very motivated in the seventh grade so that I could one day have a conversation with my grandparents so that I could get to know my family a little better. Five years later I came away with a loose understanding of the language and a motivation to not visit my grandparents often.
The failures I can just keep on counting. But mostly, I've lived life with few regrets. Every mistake is an opportunity to live much more of life. But still I'd like to taste success. And I know that all that keeps me from it is my own lack of motivation. Maybe I'm afraid of not succeeding the way I hope I could. Maybe it's that having the dream lingering in front of me; maintaining the possibility that if at any moment I turned and decided to quit my job and start writing that it could happen is enough to abandon chasing it to only understand more failure.
But I don't want to live life knowing that it could have been better if I had only worked for something. I've always thought that my one virtue is commitment. And here I can't even commit to an idea for long enough. I am going to make a TV show. I've written a script for the first episode and I've gathered most of the actors. I will film and direct it and I will edit the shit out of it. I'll slave over it. Then I'll do it two or three more times and I'll send in the best ones to dozens of networks. I'll post some previews on the internet. I'll gather a fan base. I'll send e-mails and market the shit out of the show. And I will sell it to someone for something. And I will be able to live my life making this TV show for a short period. The moment I receive the news I will break down. I'll sit down and I'll start crying. I will finally know success as the way I define it for myself. I could be a famous litigator who reforms tort law in the United States to something reasonable that helps lower the cost of health insurance, protects property owners and allows for a more free and social presence. But I won't be satisfied until I am the modern day Daniel Webster who has folk lore written about his prowess in the court room and whose violent alcoholism is the only thing that stops him from being Commander in Chief. Success to me is to live as exactly what I want to be. And whether or not I am Daniel Webster, I want to entertain people. I want to make them laugh. I want to laugh.
A pathetic rambling, indeed.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
My Letter to the Residential Services in Compliance with Punishment for Dorm Drinkin'
Juan Madrigal
AOD Reflection
My meeting at with social services brought me great insight to the dangers of alcohol. Many people there had got into some serious trouble and one man even had a friend who passed away from alcohol poisoning. The experience reminded me that alcohol is dangerous and that I need to be careful. They also taught me valuable facts about alcohol and weed that can help me avoid an untimely death or other serious consequences. For instance, while blacked out the other night, I talked to my roommate. Apparently, I said “Hey Andrew. If you drink a bunch of alcohol really fast, that's how you black out. It doesn't even matter if it's not a lot. So, I could be blacked out RIGHT NOW.”
Furthermore, I was informed that if you drink alcohol with carbonation, it is absorbed faster into your bloodstream. With this knowledge, I quickly realized that chugging a few cups of rum and coke at a 1:1 ratio is the fastest and most cost-effective way to get drunk. This saves me time and money. I also understand that shotgunning a few beers is another quick way to become intoxicated when there is no hard alcohol. I plan to apply both of these lessons in the future. Furthermore, I learned that the different strains of weed actually do matter. Before I only thought it mattered if it was indica or sativa. Apparently, each strain can change the type of high and intensity as well. Although I knew this to be true with the higher end strains, such as Trainwreck, I was not aware it mattered for most strains. Now, I can be sure to be business savvy and privy the next time that I purchase or sell marijuana. Not that I would ever do that, because it is illegal.
In addition to having knowledge that will not help me unless I insist on doing things that are illegal, I also learned that the best way to avoid danger is to avoid what is illegal. The government is pretty trustworthy and just because we have a black president does mean that doing drugs is okay. However, Obama can, because he's the president and he's charming. He smoked weed and did cocaine as far as I know. I am not citing that, because I consider it either common knowledge, or inaccurate. You know, whatever. Anyways, I don't necessarily support Obama and the way that he re-opened Guantanamo in a sneaky way and is supporting more power being diverted to the executive and stripping the Constitution of its power as higher law- however, the man looks very cool while smoking a cigarette. And hey, I can't argue with cool.
Harm-reduction to me, means a strategy by which we can reduce harm. When pertaining to illegal substances, this would include such actions as abstaining from taking any sort of drugs, or not drinking so much that you die. For example, you could drink some water or take some of those pills that get rid of your hangover. One thing that I do to reduce the harm of alcohol is to practice and build up my tolerance. I also do my best to make sure that I mix drugs that go well together. I don't want to drink and do ecstasy, for example. That would be insane.
There are many signs that people are abusing alcohol or other drugs to an extent that is just not okay. One such sign is that perhaps they are dead, or dying. Another hint could be if they begin abusing drugs more than once a day, or they become dependent on the drugs, threatening to murder you in your sleep if you don't tell them where you hid their goddam booze, you worthless mistake that could have been prevented if condoms just did their damn job for once. Luckily more for me, I am almost done with this three page assignment, and will soon be rid of the burden caused in my life by abusing various substances. After this, there will be no burden, just an awesome high and a sense of satisfaction- just as God intended. Not that I believe in God. I think I believe in something similar to the God that Spinoza described. Except maybe one that makes more sense. Either way, if I ever see God or he tells me to build a boat or something, I will trust that that is when I can know that I have a problem with alcohol or drugs.
Alright, time for the conclusion. In this concluding paragraph, I intend to summarize some of the stuff I said, and then make a deep reflection on all that I have talked about. So, in the AOD workshop, I learned that problems are very serious and that the world isn't perfect. I also continued to take this assignment seriously past the first few sentences, and discuss how great weed is. I think that's what I did. I don't remember. Anyways, there was also a paragraph about harm reduction, and I made sure that I answered all four questions. I think I put some stuff in there about Obama, too. I think that I should get extra credit for the unnecessary academia.
I decided to indent to make it appear that this conclusion isn't just the idle rambling of a mad man. I don't really remember what the fourth question was, and I don't really want to scroll up. I believe it might have had something to do with knowing that your father is an alcoholic. However, I dismissed this question on the basis that he loves and cares about me very much anyways. Plus I am out of house, so I have nothing against him- and I owe him for paying my way through college mostly. Man, who else is excited for the World Cup? I know I am. The Stanley Cup is almost over, too. Time is just flying. Also, earlier in spring semester I wrote two essays while under the influence in like four hours, and they were pretty good. Anyways, I learned a lot about both weed and alcohol. I also learned about some other drugs. I appreciated these lessons and they have touched me (in a good way).
These are the lessons that come with time and alcohol workshops. But it is really all part of growing up. I will be sure to pass this knowledge on to my children and their children for generations. I won't really keep in contact with any children I have actually. So probably not. Anyways, I will be sure to share it with any children that I meet in the next few weeks. Hopefully that will go over really well. I'm almost positive that it will. Also, I am unsure if 3-5 pages means that I barely have to write on the third page, have a full page, so I wrote this sentence just in case. Well, thanks for reading I guess, see you next time!
AOD Reflection
My meeting at with social services brought me great insight to the dangers of alcohol. Many people there had got into some serious trouble and one man even had a friend who passed away from alcohol poisoning. The experience reminded me that alcohol is dangerous and that I need to be careful. They also taught me valuable facts about alcohol and weed that can help me avoid an untimely death or other serious consequences. For instance, while blacked out the other night, I talked to my roommate. Apparently, I said “Hey Andrew. If you drink a bunch of alcohol really fast, that's how you black out. It doesn't even matter if it's not a lot. So, I could be blacked out RIGHT NOW.”
Furthermore, I was informed that if you drink alcohol with carbonation, it is absorbed faster into your bloodstream. With this knowledge, I quickly realized that chugging a few cups of rum and coke at a 1:1 ratio is the fastest and most cost-effective way to get drunk. This saves me time and money. I also understand that shotgunning a few beers is another quick way to become intoxicated when there is no hard alcohol. I plan to apply both of these lessons in the future. Furthermore, I learned that the different strains of weed actually do matter. Before I only thought it mattered if it was indica or sativa. Apparently, each strain can change the type of high and intensity as well. Although I knew this to be true with the higher end strains, such as Trainwreck, I was not aware it mattered for most strains. Now, I can be sure to be business savvy and privy the next time that I purchase or sell marijuana. Not that I would ever do that, because it is illegal.
In addition to having knowledge that will not help me unless I insist on doing things that are illegal, I also learned that the best way to avoid danger is to avoid what is illegal. The government is pretty trustworthy and just because we have a black president does mean that doing drugs is okay. However, Obama can, because he's the president and he's charming. He smoked weed and did cocaine as far as I know. I am not citing that, because I consider it either common knowledge, or inaccurate. You know, whatever. Anyways, I don't necessarily support Obama and the way that he re-opened Guantanamo in a sneaky way and is supporting more power being diverted to the executive and stripping the Constitution of its power as higher law- however, the man looks very cool while smoking a cigarette. And hey, I can't argue with cool.
Harm-reduction to me, means a strategy by which we can reduce harm. When pertaining to illegal substances, this would include such actions as abstaining from taking any sort of drugs, or not drinking so much that you die. For example, you could drink some water or take some of those pills that get rid of your hangover. One thing that I do to reduce the harm of alcohol is to practice and build up my tolerance. I also do my best to make sure that I mix drugs that go well together. I don't want to drink and do ecstasy, for example. That would be insane.
There are many signs that people are abusing alcohol or other drugs to an extent that is just not okay. One such sign is that perhaps they are dead, or dying. Another hint could be if they begin abusing drugs more than once a day, or they become dependent on the drugs, threatening to murder you in your sleep if you don't tell them where you hid their goddam booze, you worthless mistake that could have been prevented if condoms just did their damn job for once. Luckily more for me, I am almost done with this three page assignment, and will soon be rid of the burden caused in my life by abusing various substances. After this, there will be no burden, just an awesome high and a sense of satisfaction- just as God intended. Not that I believe in God. I think I believe in something similar to the God that Spinoza described. Except maybe one that makes more sense. Either way, if I ever see God or he tells me to build a boat or something, I will trust that that is when I can know that I have a problem with alcohol or drugs.
Alright, time for the conclusion. In this concluding paragraph, I intend to summarize some of the stuff I said, and then make a deep reflection on all that I have talked about. So, in the AOD workshop, I learned that problems are very serious and that the world isn't perfect. I also continued to take this assignment seriously past the first few sentences, and discuss how great weed is. I think that's what I did. I don't remember. Anyways, there was also a paragraph about harm reduction, and I made sure that I answered all four questions. I think I put some stuff in there about Obama, too. I think that I should get extra credit for the unnecessary academia.
I decided to indent to make it appear that this conclusion isn't just the idle rambling of a mad man. I don't really remember what the fourth question was, and I don't really want to scroll up. I believe it might have had something to do with knowing that your father is an alcoholic. However, I dismissed this question on the basis that he loves and cares about me very much anyways. Plus I am out of house, so I have nothing against him- and I owe him for paying my way through college mostly. Man, who else is excited for the World Cup? I know I am. The Stanley Cup is almost over, too. Time is just flying. Also, earlier in spring semester I wrote two essays while under the influence in like four hours, and they were pretty good. Anyways, I learned a lot about both weed and alcohol. I also learned about some other drugs. I appreciated these lessons and they have touched me (in a good way).
These are the lessons that come with time and alcohol workshops. But it is really all part of growing up. I will be sure to pass this knowledge on to my children and their children for generations. I won't really keep in contact with any children I have actually. So probably not. Anyways, I will be sure to share it with any children that I meet in the next few weeks. Hopefully that will go over really well. I'm almost positive that it will. Also, I am unsure if 3-5 pages means that I barely have to write on the third page, have a full page, so I wrote this sentence just in case. Well, thanks for reading I guess, see you next time!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
On Last-Minute Application Essays
I had to write an essay as part of my application to my school's writing program. Basically, if accepted, I would get paid to help other college kids write and stuff. I had a week and a half's notice. Naturally, I began writing the essay two hours before the deadline. We had the opportunity to create our own topic, and were instructed to imagine that we were submitting the essay for the sake of a college application. This is what I wrote.
Note: Nomos is Greek for law. Thiasus is the posse of Dionysus, God of wine and revelry, for whom comedy plays were written and performed.
Topic: What is your current career goal? Why?
Internal conflict between interest in law and comedy, as presented by dialogue between Nomoitus and Thiasus respectively.
Nomoitus: Good evening, Thiasus.
Thiasus: Hey, what’s up.
Nomoitus: I see that you are, as usual, huddled over your laptop. Tell me, what endeavor absorbs you so?
Thiasus: Nothing much, man. I’m just watching some YouTube videos.
Nomoitus: Ah. Narcotizing yourself with mindless drivel.
Thiasus: Whoa whoa whoa. This is Mitch Hedberg here. Dude’s a genius. Here, listen to this.
Nomoitus: I shall have to decline. I refuse to entertain myself with material so base.
Thiasus: Dude, come on. You and I are both just metaphors for diverging forces within the ego of the same personality structure. You don’t have to get up on your high horse all the time and hate on my passion.
Nomoitus: Passion? Your aimless obsession over stand-up comedy and awkward sitcoms hardly warrants such a highfalutin label. If we deem any such trivial hobby a passion, we shall have no end of them.
Thiasus: Ah, but you don’t understand. I don’t watch or read comedy just to delay my inevitable responsibilities. Sure, sheer escapism can be end in itself, but comedy doesn’t numb me; it enervates me. I aspire to wield words with the vitriolic confidence of satirists, to confound with the paraprosdokians and non-sequiturs of stand-up comedians, and most of all, just to make people laugh. There are few that I admire more than the comedic geniuses of the ages, especially those gifted with the courage and incisiveness to reveal the absurdities of social wrongs. Also, I like fart jokes.
Nomoitus: I cannot believe what I am hearing. You want to be one of those?
Thiasus: Oh, that I could.
Nomoitus: Outrageous! Inconceivable! Blarghehgsh!
Thiasus: What was that last one?
Nomoitus: You are sorely in need of redirection. I, for one, have no confidence in your abilities, however many of these “comedic geniuses” you may try to emulate. Do you wish to starve like so many failed artists and writers, and wither away in an alley with nothing to keep you company but syphilis and a broken heart?
Thiasus: First of all, people didn’t even boo when I did stand up. Second, that’s a complete mischaracterization of the entertainment industry. I could always, like, work at Blockbuster or something. Besides, what else would you suggest?
Nomoitus: I am glad that you should ask. I would settle for nothing less than the noble pursuit of law.
Thiasus: This is where you cue the laugh track.
Nomoitus: Sure, there are those in the industry that besmirch the reputation of the whole, but law itself is so incredibly fascinating. Even its very evolution from the ancient Code of Hammurabi to the social contract of the Enlightenment provides us with such fertile ground for research and reflection. One need not practice law to appreciate the myriad of issues that lie at its core, and to understand the implications they have for society and the people therein. And lastly, the relish of constructing your case and demolishing that of your opponent is a thrill unsurpassed.
Thiasus: You need to get out more.
Nomoitus: I do not think you are qualified to tell me that.
Thiasus: Touché. But I cannot agree with you. Sure, the study of law sounds interesting in theory, but would you really want to spend three years of your prime studying it, and then the rest of your life figuring out ways to get around it? I can’t imagine anything more dull and uninspiring.
Nomoitus: I think you will quickly change your mind when you notice that the only positive numbers in your bank account are to the right of the decimal point. But alas, we do not have two lives to spend. Trial and error would not be in our best interest. You and I can come to a compromise.
Thiasus: And what might that be?
Nomoitus: We go to law school. However, during our enrollment, we may try our luck with comedy writing and performing. If, by chance, we shall find success in this field, we will duly pursue our fortunes therein. Otherwise, we will find ourselves with a law degree, and with it, reasonable means of livelihood.
Thiasus: Sounds great.
Nomoitus: And we will have to take the LSAT.
Thiasus: D’oh!
Note: Nomos is Greek for law. Thiasus is the posse of Dionysus, God of wine and revelry, for whom comedy plays were written and performed.
Topic: What is your current career goal? Why?
Internal conflict between interest in law and comedy, as presented by dialogue between Nomoitus and Thiasus respectively.
Nomoitus: Good evening, Thiasus.
Thiasus: Hey, what’s up.
Nomoitus: I see that you are, as usual, huddled over your laptop. Tell me, what endeavor absorbs you so?
Thiasus: Nothing much, man. I’m just watching some YouTube videos.
Nomoitus: Ah. Narcotizing yourself with mindless drivel.
Thiasus: Whoa whoa whoa. This is Mitch Hedberg here. Dude’s a genius. Here, listen to this.
Nomoitus: I shall have to decline. I refuse to entertain myself with material so base.
Thiasus: Dude, come on. You and I are both just metaphors for diverging forces within the ego of the same personality structure. You don’t have to get up on your high horse all the time and hate on my passion.
Nomoitus: Passion? Your aimless obsession over stand-up comedy and awkward sitcoms hardly warrants such a highfalutin label. If we deem any such trivial hobby a passion, we shall have no end of them.
Thiasus: Ah, but you don’t understand. I don’t watch or read comedy just to delay my inevitable responsibilities. Sure, sheer escapism can be end in itself, but comedy doesn’t numb me; it enervates me. I aspire to wield words with the vitriolic confidence of satirists, to confound with the paraprosdokians and non-sequiturs of stand-up comedians, and most of all, just to make people laugh. There are few that I admire more than the comedic geniuses of the ages, especially those gifted with the courage and incisiveness to reveal the absurdities of social wrongs. Also, I like fart jokes.
Nomoitus: I cannot believe what I am hearing. You want to be one of those?
Thiasus: Oh, that I could.
Nomoitus: Outrageous! Inconceivable! Blarghehgsh!
Thiasus: What was that last one?
Nomoitus: You are sorely in need of redirection. I, for one, have no confidence in your abilities, however many of these “comedic geniuses” you may try to emulate. Do you wish to starve like so many failed artists and writers, and wither away in an alley with nothing to keep you company but syphilis and a broken heart?
Thiasus: First of all, people didn’t even boo when I did stand up. Second, that’s a complete mischaracterization of the entertainment industry. I could always, like, work at Blockbuster or something. Besides, what else would you suggest?
Nomoitus: I am glad that you should ask. I would settle for nothing less than the noble pursuit of law.
Thiasus: This is where you cue the laugh track.
Nomoitus: Sure, there are those in the industry that besmirch the reputation of the whole, but law itself is so incredibly fascinating. Even its very evolution from the ancient Code of Hammurabi to the social contract of the Enlightenment provides us with such fertile ground for research and reflection. One need not practice law to appreciate the myriad of issues that lie at its core, and to understand the implications they have for society and the people therein. And lastly, the relish of constructing your case and demolishing that of your opponent is a thrill unsurpassed.
Thiasus: You need to get out more.
Nomoitus: I do not think you are qualified to tell me that.
Thiasus: Touché. But I cannot agree with you. Sure, the study of law sounds interesting in theory, but would you really want to spend three years of your prime studying it, and then the rest of your life figuring out ways to get around it? I can’t imagine anything more dull and uninspiring.
Nomoitus: I think you will quickly change your mind when you notice that the only positive numbers in your bank account are to the right of the decimal point. But alas, we do not have two lives to spend. Trial and error would not be in our best interest. You and I can come to a compromise.
Thiasus: And what might that be?
Nomoitus: We go to law school. However, during our enrollment, we may try our luck with comedy writing and performing. If, by chance, we shall find success in this field, we will duly pursue our fortunes therein. Otherwise, we will find ourselves with a law degree, and with it, reasonable means of livelihood.
Thiasus: Sounds great.
Nomoitus: And we will have to take the LSAT.
Thiasus: D’oh!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
A Response to "Incessant Rambling"
This was actually going to be a comment, but I ran over the character limit. So here it is.
I must inquire as to your definition of "belong."
Does belonging to someone make you the express and exclusive possession of that person? That is, you are the subject of that person, and bound by his or her will? From this definition of belonging, one may infer two logical consequences with regard to freedom. The first possibility absolutely precludes any form of freedom--that is, any action you perform must come from the express will of your master, and you may do nothing which is not commanded by this master. This is surely not what you are referring to. The other poses an owner-pet dynamic. The pet is granted autonomy only as long as its behavior does not displease the owner, and the owner's will is (ideally) followed. Even then, the pet may still make demands, and it may sometimes persuade its owner to change his or her mind.
What if belonging merely denotes a relationship? You are my friend. I do not own you as I own a dog or a car. You are "mine" only insofar as your relationship to me is that of a friend. This relationship has little to no consequence in regards to your freedom.
What of investment? Can one invest in a friend as he can in a pet? I believe so. And clearly, the friend's freedom is not limited in this investment as the pet's freedom is. It is therefore possible to belong to many, and have many invest in you, without significant consequences to your freedom.
What of love? Would those that truly love you "give" you back to yourself? I assume that by this you mean to strip away any "belonging" that existed. Using this assumption, we may examine the possible senses of "belonging" that we have heretofore outlined. Since we have already established that you do not intend to talk about an absolute master of your actions, we need only to examine the owner-pet dynamic and the friend-friend dynamic.
If I truly loved my pet, would I relinquish its belonging to me? That is, would I release it to the wild? This cannot be the case, even if I know that the pet is self-sufficient. If I truly loved it, I would provide it the best possible care, and by releasing it I am creating that possibility that it may suffer in the quality of its lifestyle. If I truly loved it, I would only release it if doing so would cause the pet greater good than harm. It seems that it this dynamic, an owner who loves his pet must not necessarily "give it back to itself."
What if this pet was self-sufficient and satisfied prior to it falling into my possession, and did not gain a significantly better lifestyle thereafter? That is, if I tamed a fox, and did not provide it with morsels more delicious, a shelter more comfortable, than it had already been accustomed to. In this case, would I release the fox if I truly loved it? No; for in taming the fox I have accepted responsibility for taming the fox. I have made him mine as I have made me his. Once again, unless releasing him would do more good than harm, I see no reason that my love must compel me to do so.
If I truly loved a friend, would I strip away this relationship of belonging? Would I cease to call this person my friend? This also cannot be the case.
Therefore, it would seem that truly loving someone does not prompt giving that person back to himself, if doing so means to remove belonging.
What if giving someone back to himself entails simply granting him more autonomy, or freedom? But would a doting parent let a child wander onto the train tracks? Would a good friend let you gamble yourself into destitution and ruin? Once again, it has been demonstrated that to truly love someone does not mean you have to give him back to himself.
What if giving someone back to himself simply entails granting him freedom as long as he does not cause himself harm? That is, he may do whatever he wishes, to you or others, as long as he himself is not directly harmed. Would true love require you to grant this freedom? No; for to do so would be to deny self-love, and concern for others. You can truly love a friend and still stop him from bludgeoning your face incessantly with a hammer--for to love is not to utterly obey, just as to be loved is not to be utterly controlled. Therefore, it would seem that love entails respect for the other as much as respect for yourself, and understanding of the other as much as understand of yourself. It is therefore a complete fallacy to utter something akin to "If you love me, then you would let me do whatever I want." A truer sentiment would read "If you love me, and have no self-respect, and have no concern for others, and are oblivious to the harm I may cause to myself, then you would let me do whatever I want." I am not here to prescribe morality, but I believe that the most true proposition is merely this: "If you love me, you would respect and consider my opinion and weigh it against your own before acting." For to do any more or less would be to either deny self-love or to love for another.
Lastly, your final paragraph is a simple case of equivocation. It is true that one can never been completely happy or completely free. However, the pursuit of one does not entail the complete abandonment of the other. It is true that one must exercise freedom to perform actions to reach happiness, but this freedom does not need to be absolute or infinite. Happiness and freedom can each only be obtained in degrees, and it is a mistake to claim otherwise.
I must inquire as to your definition of "belong."
Does belonging to someone make you the express and exclusive possession of that person? That is, you are the subject of that person, and bound by his or her will? From this definition of belonging, one may infer two logical consequences with regard to freedom. The first possibility absolutely precludes any form of freedom--that is, any action you perform must come from the express will of your master, and you may do nothing which is not commanded by this master. This is surely not what you are referring to. The other poses an owner-pet dynamic. The pet is granted autonomy only as long as its behavior does not displease the owner, and the owner's will is (ideally) followed. Even then, the pet may still make demands, and it may sometimes persuade its owner to change his or her mind.
What if belonging merely denotes a relationship? You are my friend. I do not own you as I own a dog or a car. You are "mine" only insofar as your relationship to me is that of a friend. This relationship has little to no consequence in regards to your freedom.
What of investment? Can one invest in a friend as he can in a pet? I believe so. And clearly, the friend's freedom is not limited in this investment as the pet's freedom is. It is therefore possible to belong to many, and have many invest in you, without significant consequences to your freedom.
What of love? Would those that truly love you "give" you back to yourself? I assume that by this you mean to strip away any "belonging" that existed. Using this assumption, we may examine the possible senses of "belonging" that we have heretofore outlined. Since we have already established that you do not intend to talk about an absolute master of your actions, we need only to examine the owner-pet dynamic and the friend-friend dynamic.
If I truly loved my pet, would I relinquish its belonging to me? That is, would I release it to the wild? This cannot be the case, even if I know that the pet is self-sufficient. If I truly loved it, I would provide it the best possible care, and by releasing it I am creating that possibility that it may suffer in the quality of its lifestyle. If I truly loved it, I would only release it if doing so would cause the pet greater good than harm. It seems that it this dynamic, an owner who loves his pet must not necessarily "give it back to itself."
What if this pet was self-sufficient and satisfied prior to it falling into my possession, and did not gain a significantly better lifestyle thereafter? That is, if I tamed a fox, and did not provide it with morsels more delicious, a shelter more comfortable, than it had already been accustomed to. In this case, would I release the fox if I truly loved it? No; for in taming the fox I have accepted responsibility for taming the fox. I have made him mine as I have made me his. Once again, unless releasing him would do more good than harm, I see no reason that my love must compel me to do so.
If I truly loved a friend, would I strip away this relationship of belonging? Would I cease to call this person my friend? This also cannot be the case.
Therefore, it would seem that truly loving someone does not prompt giving that person back to himself, if doing so means to remove belonging.
What if giving someone back to himself entails simply granting him more autonomy, or freedom? But would a doting parent let a child wander onto the train tracks? Would a good friend let you gamble yourself into destitution and ruin? Once again, it has been demonstrated that to truly love someone does not mean you have to give him back to himself.
What if giving someone back to himself simply entails granting him freedom as long as he does not cause himself harm? That is, he may do whatever he wishes, to you or others, as long as he himself is not directly harmed. Would true love require you to grant this freedom? No; for to do so would be to deny self-love, and concern for others. You can truly love a friend and still stop him from bludgeoning your face incessantly with a hammer--for to love is not to utterly obey, just as to be loved is not to be utterly controlled. Therefore, it would seem that love entails respect for the other as much as respect for yourself, and understanding of the other as much as understand of yourself. It is therefore a complete fallacy to utter something akin to "If you love me, then you would let me do whatever I want." A truer sentiment would read "If you love me, and have no self-respect, and have no concern for others, and are oblivious to the harm I may cause to myself, then you would let me do whatever I want." I am not here to prescribe morality, but I believe that the most true proposition is merely this: "If you love me, you would respect and consider my opinion and weigh it against your own before acting." For to do any more or less would be to either deny self-love or to love for another.
Lastly, your final paragraph is a simple case of equivocation. It is true that one can never been completely happy or completely free. However, the pursuit of one does not entail the complete abandonment of the other. It is true that one must exercise freedom to perform actions to reach happiness, but this freedom does not need to be absolute or infinite. Happiness and freedom can each only be obtained in degrees, and it is a mistake to claim otherwise.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Incessant Rambling
If Berkeley has taught me anything it is that the systematic bureaucracy of advancement in the world is one which I am trapped in and that Berkeley itself is a part. It has also taught me that the bureaucracy is harmful to everyone who is constrained by it (everyone).
Luckily protesters have come up with the solution of destroying this system as best they can. This destruction consists of damaging anything they presently have access to within the system, and thus leaving themselves with nothing. Sounds good, but what if not having things is a disadvantage?
A good goal, therefore is to become all powerful and assume that with power comes the knowledge to use the power wisely, because after all- knowledge is power.
Sounds awesome. All options. But wait- a third one? What if I leave the system entirely and go live somewhere it can not affect me? I would be in total crippling solitude. What if I bring my own friends? Oh, we would have to create a new system between us? Hm. But what if some outside force comes to crush our humble commune? After all, property isn't owned by people unless it's also owned by everyone.
So then, nothing is mine but me? Do I belong to other people? I hope not. But I hope that I do, too. Because if I don't belong to anyone, than I only belong to myself. If I only belong to one person, that means only one person is invested in me. Do I belong to the people whom I love? I hope not, because then I would be a slave to people who don't even necessarily love me enough to give myself back to me. Do I belong to the people that love me? No, because if they truly loved me they would give me back and I would once again belong to myself. So then maybe it is enough to belong to myself but to be loved? But then I could only love those that love me if I wished to remain free. Doesn't that limit my ability to love others? So then even when I am free I am only a slave.
I can never be free, perhaps. Why would I want to be free? Why would I want the impossible? I guess, I shouldn't. Because if I want freedom I will never be happy. But what if I would prefer freedom to happiness? Then I have nothing. For I can never either. This is quite a wretched state. I could redefine freedom, but a word isn't a concept. Maybe if I focused really hard, I could convince myself that I want happiness more than freedom. But to choose happiness over freedom is an action of choice. Choice is an exercise of freedom. Maybe I naturally prefer happiness to freedom? So then is happiness the ultimate end? But then how do I make myself happy, if it is what I should desire most? Is it through my actions, each of which require exercising my own freedom?
What a dreadful state of affairs.
Luckily protesters have come up with the solution of destroying this system as best they can. This destruction consists of damaging anything they presently have access to within the system, and thus leaving themselves with nothing. Sounds good, but what if not having things is a disadvantage?
A good goal, therefore is to become all powerful and assume that with power comes the knowledge to use the power wisely, because after all- knowledge is power.
Sounds awesome. All options. But wait- a third one? What if I leave the system entirely and go live somewhere it can not affect me? I would be in total crippling solitude. What if I bring my own friends? Oh, we would have to create a new system between us? Hm. But what if some outside force comes to crush our humble commune? After all, property isn't owned by people unless it's also owned by everyone.
So then, nothing is mine but me? Do I belong to other people? I hope not. But I hope that I do, too. Because if I don't belong to anyone, than I only belong to myself. If I only belong to one person, that means only one person is invested in me. Do I belong to the people whom I love? I hope not, because then I would be a slave to people who don't even necessarily love me enough to give myself back to me. Do I belong to the people that love me? No, because if they truly loved me they would give me back and I would once again belong to myself. So then maybe it is enough to belong to myself but to be loved? But then I could only love those that love me if I wished to remain free. Doesn't that limit my ability to love others? So then even when I am free I am only a slave.
I can never be free, perhaps. Why would I want to be free? Why would I want the impossible? I guess, I shouldn't. Because if I want freedom I will never be happy. But what if I would prefer freedom to happiness? Then I have nothing. For I can never either. This is quite a wretched state. I could redefine freedom, but a word isn't a concept. Maybe if I focused really hard, I could convince myself that I want happiness more than freedom. But to choose happiness over freedom is an action of choice. Choice is an exercise of freedom. Maybe I naturally prefer happiness to freedom? So then is happiness the ultimate end? But then how do I make myself happy, if it is what I should desire most? Is it through my actions, each of which require exercising my own freedom?
What a dreadful state of affairs.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Incidental Thought Experiment of An English Paper
In my English class, we were given the assignment of making an argument about Rousseau's "Emile" (italicized!). Unfortunately it was due on Vincent's birthday. This is the unfortunate, but very entertaining result (actually, i think it's one of the best things I've ever written):
This Is Where The Title Goes
It is 8:26 AM on a Wednesday and I am supposed to be writing a narrative which reflects my beliefs on a certain topic. Here I sit facing my computer screen, still drunk from the night before. How then is it possible for me to transfer my knowledge from the confines of my head to the complexity of the pixels arranged on my computer screen? I am unsure but continue to try. My party hat is on and I have already finished writing my philosophy paper. Somehow I have managed to make my thoughts so clear that my most intelligent friend, who is awake only because he lives three hours in the future, is able to understand them well enough to refine them into an intelligible utterance. In this paper, however, I have decided to construe my thoughts through a sort of metacognition.
As I sit here writing, I am learning about myself and the way that I learn. I am learning about the way that I express myself and thus the way that I express what I have learned. What have I learned? What am I expressing? Is it syntax and grammar and the frivolous usage of words? Is it the clever irony of writing only truth in the hope that that somewhere within that which is truth lies intelligence? Or is it simply a throwaway effort which leaves me missing five percent of my English grade? One can only live and discover. I also find in this almost existential of a quandary that each experience is entirely unique. Learning can guide and inform our decisions- but only probabilistically.
It is 8:36 AM on a Wednesday and I have spent ten minutes writing a paper for English. I have abided by its confines and still found a method of narrative that in fact breaks the rules- a paradox of sorts. I sit here and reflect upon my career choice. I wish to be a lawyer, a litigator to be precise. I chose this path not because of the money it makes or because I love reason. I did not choose it because it would make me happy or because I value what makes me happy above all else. I did not choose it because I love justice or the law. I did not choose it because I love language and its ability to retain whatever meaning I chose it to convey. I chose this path because all of these reasons are true and coexist as truths. I chose the path of the litigator because it is my passion in all aspects and passion itself is in a way my true passion. I love to love and live to live.
Recalling the words of one of my favorite characters in one of my favorite shows, a nearly androgynous female known as Radical Edward in the show called Cowboy Bebop, I consider the formula to happiness. Radical Edward says in a philosophical examination of the series that she only does things which seem fun. If she is forced to do something which is not fun, she tries to find some sort of fun within the task as to always stay happy. If she can't find something fun to do, she goes to sleep. This is truly all one needs to live, this is what it means to be strong.
It is 8:46 AM on a Wednesday and I have linked happiness, intelligence, and strength in my paper. Still hoping that my cop-out of a narrative is acceptable I decide to write for its defense and explanation, further diving into the rabbit hole of a paradox that I have constructed. I have written a narrative about the thoughts of an author of a narrative. This is a very real experience, as real as I can make it. Perhaps it is too true, perhaps it is all fiction. Either way I have accomplished the goal within its means. This is innovation and intelligence. This is enlightenment. This is only made possible through the observation of that which is clever and through the experience of doing clever things. Observation and experience is what makes us capable of all that we can accomplish. It is our humanity. That's what I learned from this experience and this consideration of learning. Learning from learning about learning. AHHHH! Onomatopoeia is an author's friend.
It is 8:56AM on a Wednesday. I think I am sober, but I can never be too sure.
This Is Where The Title Goes
It is 8:26 AM on a Wednesday and I am supposed to be writing a narrative which reflects my beliefs on a certain topic. Here I sit facing my computer screen, still drunk from the night before. How then is it possible for me to transfer my knowledge from the confines of my head to the complexity of the pixels arranged on my computer screen? I am unsure but continue to try. My party hat is on and I have already finished writing my philosophy paper. Somehow I have managed to make my thoughts so clear that my most intelligent friend, who is awake only because he lives three hours in the future, is able to understand them well enough to refine them into an intelligible utterance. In this paper, however, I have decided to construe my thoughts through a sort of metacognition.
As I sit here writing, I am learning about myself and the way that I learn. I am learning about the way that I express myself and thus the way that I express what I have learned. What have I learned? What am I expressing? Is it syntax and grammar and the frivolous usage of words? Is it the clever irony of writing only truth in the hope that that somewhere within that which is truth lies intelligence? Or is it simply a throwaway effort which leaves me missing five percent of my English grade? One can only live and discover. I also find in this almost existential of a quandary that each experience is entirely unique. Learning can guide and inform our decisions- but only probabilistically.
It is 8:36 AM on a Wednesday and I have spent ten minutes writing a paper for English. I have abided by its confines and still found a method of narrative that in fact breaks the rules- a paradox of sorts. I sit here and reflect upon my career choice. I wish to be a lawyer, a litigator to be precise. I chose this path not because of the money it makes or because I love reason. I did not choose it because it would make me happy or because I value what makes me happy above all else. I did not choose it because I love justice or the law. I did not choose it because I love language and its ability to retain whatever meaning I chose it to convey. I chose this path because all of these reasons are true and coexist as truths. I chose the path of the litigator because it is my passion in all aspects and passion itself is in a way my true passion. I love to love and live to live.
Recalling the words of one of my favorite characters in one of my favorite shows, a nearly androgynous female known as Radical Edward in the show called Cowboy Bebop, I consider the formula to happiness. Radical Edward says in a philosophical examination of the series that she only does things which seem fun. If she is forced to do something which is not fun, she tries to find some sort of fun within the task as to always stay happy. If she can't find something fun to do, she goes to sleep. This is truly all one needs to live, this is what it means to be strong.
It is 8:46 AM on a Wednesday and I have linked happiness, intelligence, and strength in my paper. Still hoping that my cop-out of a narrative is acceptable I decide to write for its defense and explanation, further diving into the rabbit hole of a paradox that I have constructed. I have written a narrative about the thoughts of an author of a narrative. This is a very real experience, as real as I can make it. Perhaps it is too true, perhaps it is all fiction. Either way I have accomplished the goal within its means. This is innovation and intelligence. This is enlightenment. This is only made possible through the observation of that which is clever and through the experience of doing clever things. Observation and experience is what makes us capable of all that we can accomplish. It is our humanity. That's what I learned from this experience and this consideration of learning. Learning from learning about learning. AHHHH! Onomatopoeia is an author's friend.
It is 8:56AM on a Wednesday. I think I am sober, but I can never be too sure.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Thoughts on Freedom
This post needs editing.
I started reading Rousseau's "Emile"(pretend it's underlined) recently for my English class. I now find him even more of an amusing spectacle than a philosopher. His points are not derived through logic nor do they build on one another. He merely rambles about various topics incessantly. He contradicts himself often and really only has a few decent ideas total. One thing that I find interesting is that when he describes education from a broader standpoint, it reminds me of the education of Arthur by Merlin in T.H. White's "The Once And Future King" (I realize that that should be underlined, but fuck html).
He wants a natural education so that when the boy grows into a man he will be free. This freedom, Rousseau describes is when a man only wants what he is capable of having and does what he pleases. Another thing that Rousseau stated was that children cannot learn about property and its value until he has invested himself into it through his labor. This point reminded me of Little Prince, which was cool. Everything else I have read has been a contradictory mess.
What is more interesting is the concept of freedom itself. My entire Political Theory class is centered upon this topic. Positive versus negative freedom and collective versus individual freedom. Positive freedom pertaining to the ability to act and negative pertaining to the lack of restriction. Collective freedom refers to political rights and individual freedom more refers to capitalist freedom of exercising ones own freedom.
When reading Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor" (actually in quotes this time, yes!), the question of freedom being good or bad was proposed. The answer of the Inquisitor is that it was bad, because people would not be able to handle the "great weight" of it. Upon further examination of the three trials which Jesus went through in the desert, the burdens become apparent. The temptation of bread, the temptation of miracle, and the temptation of authority. God could enslave people through giving them bread and ensuring them life, through performing miracle and ensuring them of their purpose, or through an authority ensuring them unity.
Though there was more to it, essentially it came down to: People give up their freedom because they fear death or lack of purpose.
But can people even give up their freedom? Because to choose to give up their freedom to a higher authority, they are essentially choosing. And in this choice, they bear no greater consequence than that of any other choice: the loss of the options which they have forsaken to make their choice.
Then why is it considered slavery when we worship these things? Because the beauty in freedom is that we are free to determine our own morality and see the beauty inherent to life itself. Freedom enables to experience good through determining what is good. It also determines what is bad- but what is bad but a negation of good? To exist with good and bad is indeed perfection. Once we understand the beauty of both, we understand the necessity and sublime grace of freedom.
Plus, this one time- I saw a cab with a ramming cage (like the kind on the front of police cars) and it had "Adventure Cab" painted on the side. So yeah, berkeley is pretty neat.
I started reading Rousseau's "Emile"(pretend it's underlined) recently for my English class. I now find him even more of an amusing spectacle than a philosopher. His points are not derived through logic nor do they build on one another. He merely rambles about various topics incessantly. He contradicts himself often and really only has a few decent ideas total. One thing that I find interesting is that when he describes education from a broader standpoint, it reminds me of the education of Arthur by Merlin in T.H. White's "The Once And Future King" (I realize that that should be underlined, but fuck html).
He wants a natural education so that when the boy grows into a man he will be free. This freedom, Rousseau describes is when a man only wants what he is capable of having and does what he pleases. Another thing that Rousseau stated was that children cannot learn about property and its value until he has invested himself into it through his labor. This point reminded me of Little Prince, which was cool. Everything else I have read has been a contradictory mess.
What is more interesting is the concept of freedom itself. My entire Political Theory class is centered upon this topic. Positive versus negative freedom and collective versus individual freedom. Positive freedom pertaining to the ability to act and negative pertaining to the lack of restriction. Collective freedom refers to political rights and individual freedom more refers to capitalist freedom of exercising ones own freedom.
When reading Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor" (actually in quotes this time, yes!), the question of freedom being good or bad was proposed. The answer of the Inquisitor is that it was bad, because people would not be able to handle the "great weight" of it. Upon further examination of the three trials which Jesus went through in the desert, the burdens become apparent. The temptation of bread, the temptation of miracle, and the temptation of authority. God could enslave people through giving them bread and ensuring them life, through performing miracle and ensuring them of their purpose, or through an authority ensuring them unity.
Though there was more to it, essentially it came down to: People give up their freedom because they fear death or lack of purpose.
But can people even give up their freedom? Because to choose to give up their freedom to a higher authority, they are essentially choosing. And in this choice, they bear no greater consequence than that of any other choice: the loss of the options which they have forsaken to make their choice.
Then why is it considered slavery when we worship these things? Because the beauty in freedom is that we are free to determine our own morality and see the beauty inherent to life itself. Freedom enables to experience good through determining what is good. It also determines what is bad- but what is bad but a negation of good? To exist with good and bad is indeed perfection. Once we understand the beauty of both, we understand the necessity and sublime grace of freedom.
Plus, this one time- I saw a cab with a ramming cage (like the kind on the front of police cars) and it had "Adventure Cab" painted on the side. So yeah, berkeley is pretty neat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)