How.Dare.You!

“I’ve supported you all these years, and you go out onto that field and play like THAT?!!”
“I voted for you, but then you went and cheated on your wife?!!”
“Dude, we came out together and now I’m having a drink and you don’t want to buy one and drink one too?!!”
…….HOW DARE YOU?!!!”

Seems to be that the common denominator is that Bob (my name for the first-person speaker) is complaining about something that is none of their own business, yet as if it were all about him.
Sportsmen play how they play; it’s not a personal affront to you if their team (NOTE: not YOUR team) loses. Why would you think it is?
Politicians marry their loved ones, and do as they wish; it is not a personal affront to you if they cheat on their (NOTE AGAIN: not YOUR) partner. Why would you think it is?
And it’s his body, his wallet, his endocrine system, and NOT a personal affront to you if he doesn’t want to be sick the next morning and not afford lunch (especially on behalf of someone who cares so little for them as to think they should) without a reason. Ditto from above.

Why, I ask. Seems to me Bob thinks about himself so much - especially on an emotional level that leads to unjustified feelings of betrayal and then propensity for spite - that he fails to understand how the other person could.possibly.NOT.be.thinking.of.him.aswell, even though the other person is likely instead thinking of themself too. Some kind of ego-centricity has led Bob to believe that he deserves unjustified rights (for lack of a better word) to be met by others, very often at the other’s expense, and yet Bob fails to realise that the other person does have justified rights to not have to meet Bob’s delusions (I found a better word!), at least on behalf of Bob.

But Bob gets offended. It’s funny; the more offended Bob gets – the more ego-centric he essentially is – the less likely he is to afford the other people those rights either in return, or even when they have some other justification for them. Am I right? Know anyone like this? Like a beggar, who would never think to donate to charity, even should they get the chance later. I’ve come across plenty of beggars who get offended because I didn’t give them money I didn’t have – not that I’d want to give money to someone who would be offended by that, or that they had any reasonable claim to my money (I mean, it’s mine; not ours).

The point I’m making is that when I say something like, “It’s mine; not ours,” your feeling slightly on edge by this comment means YOU’RE BOB. It is mine, and you know it, but somehow it’s normal for people to be offended when others have the audacity to exclude them – even when they have no real claim to anything but exclusion. But… to respond with animosity? It seems the other is the only one who has a right to that righteous fury that Bob deludes himself into thinking he is driven by.

Why should someone take into account Bob’s interests, and who is Bob to be offended should they not?

Are you Bob?

Simple pleasures, and when to stop.

As I always quote myself, “A person should aspire to be rich enough to afford anything they want, but not everything they want.”

That sports car… or that one. I can’t decide. Agh well, I’ll get that one, and if I don’t like it then I’ll get the other.
Agh well, agh well, agh well… AGH WELL? Where’s the satisfaction in that? Trump rich with a desire for the overboard in life, is like having all the sex you want with no orgasm. No culmination, no climax, no moment of, “Yeah I did it, I got that, I achieved it.” There is no, “This moment is special,” rather, “Agh well, I can just keep doing it. . .”

But on the simple pleasures…
I heard a story of a wealthy father who, on holiday, discovered his kid had left their shoes at home in another country. So the father paid to fly a member of their entourage home to fetch the shoes. Was he being pompous, or were the shoes somehow sentimentally irreplaceable? I like to think the latter.
There is something special about being able to order in gourmet food at the touch of the button, but instead just making yourself a sandwich. There is something special about only once being able to order in gourmet food at that touch of that button, and then doing it, and enjoying it.
There is something incredibly dull about just ordering that food if you can anytime without relative cost – because you’re so frikkin’ rich, of course – and there is something unappealing about having to make that sandwich because you don’t have a choice – even if I would have chosen it.

Familiarity breads contempt.

What Women Want – a generalization with seeds of truth

Now I’m not a sexist, I hate men every bit as much prime facie, but society and behaviours learned have developed to such a degree that women, what they do because they’re “allowed” to or always do, thoroughly … gets to me. An example, is how women typically don’t get out of the way; you’re walking along and a woman walks towards you, she won’t get out of the way cos that’s what men do – that’s what men have always done for these women. That’s fine, the boys always wanted to be nice to the girls. BUT, if one more woman just stands in a doorway and looks at me, expecting me to go around her, I’m gonna slap her – I swear! This Pavlovian Dog mechanism has taught these women to not even think to move, to such a degree that even when they’re just standing in a doorway they won’t. This never happens with men, they move out the doorway for me.

I don’t blame these women, they’re doing what they’ve learnt, but it irritates me. And it happens both ways… to the point of this post:

Ladies, imagine a guy likes you, and he tells you. You don’t like him back, but he says you should cos it’s only fair. This irritates you a little and you like him less. He asks what the difference is between the two of you that you don’t like him back; and you can’t ethically say anything derogatory. This irritates you more, he now seems to be an ass. Eventually, after this kind of stuff goes on for a while, he says, “Okay, why don’t you even take me seriously anymore?” And you tell him it’s because he’s irritating. And he calls you a sexist.

He was clearly going about it all wrong! Now, replacing the concept of liking someone with the concept of acknowledging rights, and you have:

Women, saying they deserve equal rights. Many men agree, so these women (spurred on by acknowledgement) say, “Look at these men, they agree, we deserve equal rights.” The men, even those who agreed, turn around and say that the women have rights; but the women say back that they’re not being taken seriously, how can they be seen different? And the men can’t say anything derogatory, because it’s unethical. So, in the end, legally women are equal to men (which is good) but the men don’t take them seriously, or like them – for the very same reason that the you don’t like the ass in the example above.

Women here are clearly going about it wrong! You see, women fuss about getting the right man, a guy who takes charge and should somehow psychically know what he’s supposed to do once he’s taken charge because if he does the wrong thing he’s out (this is why men study pick-up artistry, by the way). Women fuss about how models on magazine covers make them look bad, and how it objectifies and degrades women. They fuss about rape-related issues - I know for a fact that very often women call rape so that their boyfriends don’t find out. Fact - so occassionally it is just pathetic fussing. Hell, women often fuss about a man, like me, even bringing up the sex issues – as if only women can suffer post-coital consequences! Women also fuss for women’s rights, which they deserve, and they fuss about being taken seriously. Here’s the catch: Men don’t take these women seriously because we see them as FUSSY. This is why feminists are so often despised: they give women a bad name.

Ladies, you’re doing it wrong. You will never be taken seriously so long as you keep telling people to take you seriously. And men, you will never get a woman to like you if you nag her to.

Scratch only the itch

I’m not sure what to write here, but the four words that title this post account for the fundamental, inescapable, aspect of human behaviour. Scratch only the itch, and nothing else. Do not eat when you are not hungry, or sleep when not tired, or drink when not thirsty… they are otherwise all uncomfortable experiences.

Scratching your arm, longer, harder, gets worse and worse when you are not itchy, right? Mind you, sex itself is unpleasant when not aroused.

Love.

*The greatest path to goodness.

*The reason for living.

Is a fucking form of scratching. It has no more meaning for those not itchy HAHA and one who pursues love when it is undesired Does Not Enjoy It. So don’t be fooled, love isn’t special.

And I do not miss the scratching for not having the itch. TM

Starting Again

Visualise a football, in a match, kicked around, dribbled, what-have-you until it’s been kicked so much it … starts again? Make any sense?

Now, I love the idea that starting again is possible. Reading over old posts, I most certainly want to. I’m not who I was a few months ago, when sick, or in the years before then, when sick, or messed up and depraved like I was. Before I got sick. But that makes no sense… I am who I am because of what I went through.

With that in mind, I am very much a different person now. No new start, but I’m certainly moving forward, changing, and so damn desperately glad for it. Today someone actually remarked on how I never seem to feel down or get depressed. How far I’ve come in the last few months is simply a representation of how far I’ll go in the next few months… and years. If. I. Don’t. Stop.

And you can’t start again without stopping, so never stop. Don’t go where I went, go where I’m going. Follow me, if you must.

Know Thyself

A follow up from my last post, I guess, and a life philosphy I recently came up. Know Thyself, there is no one else.

Minds, behaviour, thoughts, desires, unconscious and conscious… you cannot observe any of these in others, just their behaviour. If you want to know how any of it is significant, you have to observe it within yourself. You’ll be surprised, really, at how much control you’ll get over your usual unconscious or unexplained behaviour, your desires, and even the influences advertising has on you, if you understand and are able to observe the relevant factors.
For example: Let us hypnotize a hypothetical Bob, so that when we click our fingers, Bob jumps. Or scratches his nose (I bet your nose is itchy… or the itch is somewhere, growing…). Okay, *click*, *jump*. Now, ask Bob why? “Ummm… I felt like it.” Or perhaps, “I was happy, and felt like reaching for the skies.” Essentially a retrospective reasoning system, or an appeal to feelings, neither of which hits on the true cause. Neither of which says, “Your clicking made me feel like it.” Is your nose still itchy?

Once you understand the stimulus, it loses its strength for effect. The observed ‘free will’ apparent only in humans? THAT comes from our understanding of ourselves, and our ability to make rational actions stems from there!
The first thing they’ll teach you in Neuro-Linguistic Programming is introspection. Psychoanalysis, to overcome behavioural problems? Also introspection, observing behaviour, finding the reason, and then breaking out of the behaviour.

The human mind can only concentrate on one thing (“concentrate”; from “concentric”, as in circles around a single point… right?) but is aware of immense amounts of information, stimulus, all subliminal, all affecting our behaviour. How are your feet positioned? Think of a colour… now why did you choose it? How many people have ended a relationship because it felt uncomfortable, or bought a book because they felt a connection to it?

Unconscious behaviour works similarly to hypnosis; we are all hypnotised, you’ll never completely wake up. You’ll never be perfect. You’re probably thinking, “Why is he saying this? It negates the post.” If you have introspection, self-awareness, whatever you want to call it, you may have thought, “He’s saying this to manipulate me.”

*Click*, *Scratch*.

Understanding

Forgive me, I’m tired:

I’ll bet you can’t understand this; I’ll bet that what it is that I’m trying to say is not the same idea, certainly not involving the same qualia, as the one you receive. Meaning is the only thing that can ever be understood, and it can never be completely understood – at least, if it is, no one will ever be able to tell.

With that in mind, why do people try to ‘understand’ the universe? Or life, or anything without an apparent message? Or even the sciences. Think about it, then give me the one-and-only answer to what is going on when a man makes eye-contact with a woman. Give me the one-and-only answer that combines body language (see icanreadyou.wordpress.com), physics, neurology, evolution theory, and then tell me the ‘Creator’s’ message that this is supposed to portray… Because, honestly, I’m starting to doubt it is even possible to combine higher level sciences and schools of thoughts with their lower levels.

As it stands, I’m dabbling with the practice of reading about neurochemistry, persuasuion, psychology, and body language just to completely understand the happening I suggested above, along with it’s implications and causes (if there is such a thing as cause and effect – although, the anthropomorphic principle thingy seems to suggest there must be) and, eventually, in theory, and hopefully one-day in practise, if we’re lucky in science, and other things in comma-parenthesis, it will be possible to understand and explain the universe through just this phenomenon.

If there’s anything to understand. If I’m not wasting my time. Good night. X

Feeling Neglected

So, I haven’t posted in a while. I’ve been distracted – it happens, trust me – despite the fact that I’ve filled my life with inertia and let it fall apart. Now I need to fix it. But I simply don’t know how to, or what to do.

Any advice?

Anyone?

Okay, he’s the jig – I’ve been severly clinically depressed with major depression for over two years. After literally trying every trick in the book to recover, things are finally looking up.

But as I look up, I see there’s no ladder to climb. I can get well, if I have a direction to get well towards – if that makes sense?

I guess my writing here is just to think things through. I guess if anyone out there has any advice on recovering, please comment.

But I don’t expect you to.

Because I’m feeling neglected.

On racism, and racialism

Evolution. But I don’t want to believe black africans are better athletes than whites, or whites are smarter, or coloureds are friskier, or whatever other stereotypes there are. Stereotypes derived from jealousy and hatred cannot, by default, be accurate, because they’re biased; if they are accurate, they’re co-incidently so.

But evolution.

Take now into account my surroundings. I’m a relatively young white male in post-Apartheid, affirmative action, buffoon-Zuma ruled country. I’m not a racist, I hope that you’ll believe that of me by the time.

But evolution keeps screaming at me in the back of my head. And adaptation, and cultural adaptation (something that differentiates us from the animal kingdom at large). I may not be an authority on, or even completely accurately comprehend, evolution, but I know the basics. Okay, so here goes…

MT Eve, or Y-chromosome Adam popped up in rift valley. Black people, evolved to be resistant to the sun. They spread North, East, every what direction. In North Africa sickle-cell anaemia became common as a survival trait against maleria, in Europe skin got lighter, on the steppes eyes grew wider… Evolution f***king occured between the different races of man. The shape of the muscles of the knee, the thickness of the skin, the colour of the eyes, their shape, the colour of hair and skin. It’s mass-scale evolution and adaptation, and, quite simply, we are different.

I’ve even heard black africans hear music differently to white africans, though I’m not sure on the reliability of that source… whoever it was… IQ’s vary cross-cultural because the environment you grow up in determines how you think, or something.

While no race is better, we, as different races of homo sapiens, are different. We all have some skills, some weaknesses (one of mine is apparently spelling). God, there’re even people with splinter skills out there. And, as long as we wander around, shadow over our eyes proclaiming that we are all the same, the longer the evidence will turn around and show us our fallacy.

One thing is clear – no one is any less than perfect for what they were bio-enginered for, but we are not the same.

That’s all, thank you. For now. Love ya all

Some thoughts…

Okay, terrorists attack America, or Britain or wherever. They use the target country’s infrastructure against them; their phones, internet, even airlines and busses or whatever. This I get. Point one for the terrorist liberty bill – or, again, whatever you want to call it – but what I don’t get is, and this is clearly being reported as done in the USA, is the deprivation of the public’s rights to defend the country. They use our phones? Let’s bug them. They use our airlines? Let’s block people from flying. Goodbye civil liberties. Now, I envision some terrorist group sitting back and laughing as the American (in this case) government terrifies their own citizens, and take away the very civil liberties that the terrorists are trying to deprive them of. Am I making sense? Take away the civil liberties to fight the war on terror and you become the terrorist. You do their job for them.

And forgiveness? Now, I’m fairly well-known for holding my grudges, and I can hate like there’s no tomorrow, so I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I’m unable to properly understand forgiveness. Here’s my take on it: someone does wrong by you, but, for some reason you forget about it. Likewise, then, should it not be that if someone does right by you, you should to forget about that? Because, when they did the wrong, the person they were at the time, the entirety of their being in your respect, is that of the person harming you. Now, the only reason I can conceive of that happening falling away, the disagreement or whatever not becoming the entirety of the relationship between the two of you is that either they, or you, change, so that the wrongdoer is no longer the person that wronged you, or the wronged is no longer considered wronged. Thus three issues arise in my mind: firstly, how long does it take for them to change, and how can you know that they have changed? For, to know that they have changed can only be ascertained a posteriori, that is, by them no longer wronging you in the same way… surely then, they have changed instantly, the moment they finished wronging you in such a manner, and so you must immediately forgive them. He cheated on you? Is he doing it right now, this instant? No? Then forgive him. But this seems to me clearly absurd. Then, forgiveness must come from when you have changed. He hit you? Only forgive him for hitting you when you have changed such that you no longer dislike being hit. It follows then that there are some deeds for which you may never forgive, unless you change in a seemingly absurd manner. Secondly, if they change from being the evil doer (and, as I have shown, this may be instantaneous, if at all) then, similarly, they should change from being a doer of goodwill. He gave you flowers? Yay. But wait, he is no longer the person giving you flowers, so you should no longer like, appreciate, or thank him for the deed. Or, your parents gave you life? So what, that was then. Does this too not seem absurd? As the opposite of forgiveness, it should surely follow the same rules, or the inverse of the rules, that forgiveness follows. So, thirdly, it would appear forgiveness is random, without any logical explanation. Why, then, do it? I would like to point out that these are my views on forgiveness, and not an attack at your views (if that makes any difference?).