Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Of Prophets and Madmen

While I realize the category of tonight's topic is a rather pretentious one, please be aware that it only implies a level of ostentation that I'm not willing to deliver.

I've been going back to some of the old classics... the ones that most would consider either agonizingly boring, or luridly fascinating. I admit to falling into the latter. I have gone back to read titles from Vonnegut, George Orwell, and Huxley. One thing that I've noticed about these authors is that they are all most known for writing novels where society is portrayed in some horrific manner or another. Honestly, this theme is regurgitated ad nauseum all throughout a good portion of books by these literary minds.

People react to this pattern in different ways. Some consider it brilliant, for various reasons. There are those who find it trite and cliched. The ignorant should, for the sake of this discussion, be taken into consideration, as well. As far as I'm concerned, none of these answers would be wrong.

What I'm here to talk about tonight is my take on three novels - one each by the aforementioned authors.

The first novel is entitled "Player Piano," written by Vonnegut. Of the three, it is probably the darkest take on society - even moreso when applied to conventional standards - and yet is the lightest in its presentation. Vonnegut was known for his dark sense of humor; one that constantly felt like a razor tongue-in-cheek along open sores.

In this novel, society is presented in a caste system comprising of two parts; the rich and the poor. The poor were the people whose main purposes in society before World War II were replaced by machines. The well to do were those that were the engineers and managers that kept society going as what they viewed was a well-oiled machine.

Through a series of events that, in the spirit of saving time in writing what is honestly going to be a rather extensive post, as well as the hope of you all finding a copy of this book and reading it yourselves, I will not get into, Paul finds himself faced with a choice that calls into question all of his fears, worries, and doubts. He is given the choice of fame and fortune, or being the figurehead of a kind of rebellion against the machine society.

The ending is darkly realistic, to the point of being cynical. However, it was brilliantly written and handled in such a way as it invokes feeling in the reader in some fashion or another. For me, it led me through yet another doorway of perception that I just can't stop thinking about.

You see, Paul was someone who was on the inside, and came to realize just how messed up everything really was. He saw how people were gaining off of the suffering of others, and how cut-throat his world really was. He wasn't okay with that. I have to admit that I'm not, either.

This particular theme is found earlier in literary history, in the title "Brave New World," written by Aldoux Huxley. The similarities are there mostly because this is the novel that "inspired" Vonnegut's tale. He was actually quoted as saying that he "cheerfully ripped off of Brave New World, just like Brave New World cheerfully ripped off of Yevgeny Zamyitan's We."

Anyways, all plagiarism aside, Brave New World has society cast in what has to be the scariest ways of the three books. Society was broken down into five main castes - Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons - with a sixth caste, who were referred to as "Savages," that were known about, but never really considered to really be people to begin with.

In this society, the people all take a drug known as Soma, which, incidentally enough, is an allusion to a mythical drink of the same name that was consumed by Indo-Aryans. This drug would cause hallucinations of varying intensity, and give the members of this dystopian society a "vacation." The society could be described as absolutely hedonistic, at best, and there are things wrong with it that would make any person of any real values flinch.

Sexual activity is something that is encouraged from early childhood. The idea that "everybody belongs to everybody else" is repeated so often, that one could easily - and understandably - draw the conclusion that it is some form of mantra. Reproduction has been rendered obsolete, and the emotion of love doesn't ever factor into their lives as anything more than a pornographic thought.

Another taboo is the idea of alone time. The whole idea of "conform, consume, obey" is pounded into their heads from such an early age that this is what they end up doing - always consuming and never being alone. If you're not out participating in the latest trends with everybody else, or screwing some "friend" for the day, you are ostracized from the society, and you are never looked at the same again. Conventional wisdom says that you are doing it to yourself, and therefore, nobody ever bothers to attempt to help.

The idea of being an individual is a radical one. Nobody dares to try, because nobody wants to be different. Well, most of them don't. Enter Brenard, one of the three main characters of the tale.

Brenard is an Alpha Plus, and a psychologist. He is shorter than average height for his cast - a deformity, in the eyes of this society - and therefore suffers from an inferiority complex. Like Paul Proteus from the previously discussed title, he is an insider looking out, and sees many things wrong with what is going on around him. He even once denounces the soma drug, instead proclaiming that he'd "rather be himself."

This certainly earns no points with the rest of society, but it does usher in the attraction from the second main character, Lenina. She has her own complexes, but unlike her counterpart, is socially accepted. The only gripe against her is that she "isn't promiscuous enough."

...

Anyhow, while out and about with each other one day, they end up in a reservation for the "savages." They find a woman named Linda, who was once a member of the caste society, but mistimed her birth control dosage and consequently became pregnant. She misses her little world of random sex and drugs, and so talks Brenard and Lenina into taking her and her son, John, back to the "brave new world."

John is instantly afforded a sort of celebrity status. Not only is he something new and different for the masses to consume, but he is what they know as a "savage," as well. As he finds himself going deeper into the rabbit hole that leads to this bastardized Wonderland, he becomes deeply troubled by what he sees. It's nothing like what his mother told him it was, and it causes him much grief.

Again, there are a lot of events to cover that I'm just not willing to go into. The philosophy behind the book is a look at a godless society and what it does to people, and makes us question our humanity. At least, that's what it's intended to do. The problem is, I feel that this is the direction that we, as a people, are heading.

Everywhere I look, I am constantly reminded of the differences between the people of today's society. I often see people of other classes mingling with each other sporadically. I am guilty of this. However, I've lately been questioning the motives behind it. What are we doing, when we do this? Are we looking to vicariously have some experience that we can later tell stories about? Or are we legitimately seeking companionship regardless of the social boundaries that will invariably separate us all eventually, despite our feelings of it happening?

This book is succeeding in a prophesy. It's doing so because it failed as a warning. Had someone, somewhere along the line taken the time to think about it, things might be different today. But, with the advent of capitalism, it all died.

One book that did succeed as a warning, however, was "1984," written by a one George Orwell.

Wells depicts society in a totalitarian state. The government rules all, knows all, sees all, and is never questioned. Those that are questioned are shot. Their executions are almost always public, and everybody cheers.

The story follows the life of Winston, an employee of the government who is in charge of altering history records to bolster the illusion of Big Brother being pansophical. His position allows him to become disillusioned to everything that's going on around him, and this leads to his rebellion. It also leads to torture and his eventual conversion, but you'd have to read about that, yourself.

The point is that we find yet another person on the inside of some seemingly magical society where all of our wants and needs are taken care of, but at the cost of the very things that continue to make us human.

I probably shouldn't be reading these things, as I am now at a point where I no longer crave to be a member of this society. I see it going in a direction that I don't like, and I have no other way than this to express that. I now crave nothing more than a constant state of disassociation.

Yet at the same time, I want to help.

I just don't know how.

Monday, October 18, 2010

If You Can't Do Something Right...

Warning: This blog entry contains adult language and mature subject matter. If you think you might be offended by something I may say, please try something a little more suited to your tastes instead.

Before we start this off today, I am going to go ahead and do the full-disclosure thing and let you all know that this is a rather pointed entry, but it's something that needs to be discussed anyway.

Is it just me, or is the collective insult vernacular of the Internet almost exclusively reserved to things like "asshat," "fucktard," and "douchebag?" Those aren't witty, and they certainly don't do you any favors. It's like a man with glasses calling a monocled chap "Two Eyes." The secret to insulting someone is not to appear a total moron. You want to seem smarter than they are.

At the very least, make up your own insults. Really. What you've got out there just doesn't insult me. Douchebag? I'm pretty sure that went out of style in the early '90's. And perhaps it is not wise to point out that one who is a douchebag is still going to get a lot closer to a vagina than you ever will in your lifetime.

Asshat? Am I missing some sort of meaning to it, or does it really just mean a hat which rests upon one's behind? Condoms are kind of hats, I guess, but again... we don't want to remind your opponent that you've only read about sex on the Internet. So, is an asshat like a butt condom or something? Or maybe it's a pair of underpants. With skidmarks? Trust me, there are far better insults involving skidmarks than "asshat."

Fucktard. That oh-so-witty combination of "fucking" and "retard." Beautiful. Let's take two offensive words, keep the stressed syllables, and create a new wondrous word of insult. Sorry, guys. It's not that witty. Witty can never be confined to one word. It requires intelligence to produce wit - something I fear is quite lacking on the Internet, these days. It doesn't require intelligence to call someone else a dirty name; it doesn't even show intelligence.

If you really want to insult someone, then you've got to know how. The great art of insulting is a beautiful thing; something that can be appreciated long after the original cause is lost. Check out some of these quotes from Oscar Wilde. They were so insulting that they were remembered over 100 years after they were said.

"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months."

"I am not young enough to know everything."

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

"It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating."

"Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong."

You see? Not a single "asshat" or "douchebag" in the bunch. and these are biting insults of the highest caliber. They write books about a quality insult. I'm not talking about those books that you buy at the Book Fair in Middle School which proclaims "You look like a million bucks! All green and wrinkled!" to be the zenith of contemporary wit. I'm talking about those nice leather-bound books that speech writers like to cling to as if they were their only child.

So, before you decide to write off that e-mail or Facebook post proclaiming me to be an "asshat" or a "pompous know-it-all," just remember that you aren't impressing me. Seriously, after about a dozen or so of them all strung together that feature practically the same words, you aren't even standing out in a crowd. One guy said "Trollololol." This means he sought out to make me angry, for at least part of my day. Not quite... I can't get angry over something so damned pathetic. Pity is the only emotion that he was able to eke out of me.

Put your backs into it, now! Use some wit. Impress me. Make me feel worse! Don't contribute to me feeling superior! Don't prove me right! Come on. Be original. I'm sure it's possible. I wouldn't want to live in a world where it wasn't, because if there's one thing this world doesn't need, it's another asshole of limited intelligence.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Apples and Oranges

Often times, I confuse people. I understand how I can be confusing. My style of writing is a far cry from how I speak on a day-to-day basis. My actions are the kind that often leave people wondering "What the hell?" I know for a fact that there are many out there who, after my novelty wears off and they realize that it's not really an act, cannot stand me. I understand this, but I will not offer any apologies for it.

Back in April, I went into extensive detail about the way that I am, in hopes that some people would derive a better understanding of how my mind works. I also touched a bit on the fact of why I love writing so much. I have since tried to continue with this trend, using the blessing of anonymity that the Internet provides as a way to really let people take a look inside.... hence the title of the blog itself.

For those that don't know, I like to consider myself an avid gamer. While I'm sure that whatever credibility I have built up has gone right out the window for some people with that statement, I assure you that this entry has very little to do with video games. I'm honestly not sure what to talk about tonight, and am just kind of... going with it.

I read this blog on a regular basis. The things that Pojut talks about interest and intrigue me. I'm sure that many of you can get some enjoyment out of it, as well. The things that he talks about certainly warrant their own discussions in and of themselves, as often times I find this man's ramblings rather inspirational.

So, it is in this spirit that I figured I would give a shot at writing something meaningful about something that's equally meaningless. Maybe about how apples are better than oranges. You see, I personally believe that, if done correctly, a rant such as this could show how important reasoned decision-making is, even when the stakes are low.

Interestingly enough, this is where I end up getting into the most trouble with my peers. You see, when you put what is generally labeled as "deep thought" into the nature of our very existence, people tend to react with "Ah, yes. Deep thoughts are good." However, when you put it into something that most people consider meaningless, they turn on you like rabid hyenas.

I've always come from the approach that there's no such thing as "over-thinking." There's poor reasoning and timorousness which can cause people to mistrust their thinking, thus believing that over-thinking can be a bad thing. The reality of this situation, as I see it, is that it's just bad over-thinking that's horrible. The main problem is that people simply don't know the difference.

I've noticed, for example, with my detached observation, that people park stupid. Whenever I go to any destination that whimsy carries me, I often see people driving around, desperately seeking that "good" parking space. The problem, however, is they only really look in the two lanes in front of the door. Invariably, they'll end up parking father out by relying on those two lanes than if they parked three lanes over. It's almost as if they have poor spatial reasoning.

When I park, I always do it fairly close to the door. I do it because of the fact that in certain regions, this kind of thing could very well be a survival requirement. I never have to follow cars around the parking lot, and I generally get the same spot every single time. At the local mall, I have this great spot - I have to walk through a department store rather than going through the main entrance, but it's a small price to pay when one considers the expediency of such a space. It has shade, it's close to the door, has very little traffic, and is typically always available, except for the chaotic time of the year that is the holidays.

"But, dude," you might say. "It's just a parking space."

I figure that's the kind of reaction I would get out of most of the people who are reading this. They would be correct. It is just a parking space, and nothing of any real consequence whatsoever. You walk maybe an extra hundred and fifty feet by choosing poorly. However, it's like the people who go through the mall food court rather than around it, preferring to move dozens of chairs and other furniture out of the way while navigating through throngs of people rather than taking a path that is essentially equidistance without the obstacles. The shortest path between two spots isn't always a straight line, but who cares? You move a few chairs and have to say "excuse me" a few times. It's not the end of the world.

The only way that I can think of to respond to that is to say that you can't fault someone for thinking about the problem any more than I can fault someone for not thinking about it. It may not be important, but there is a better solution and I don't exactly have to whip out a calculator to figure it out. You've probably timed two or more different routes driving hoe and that's no more important than where and how you park.

I go to movie theaters to watch the films. It's rarely ever a group thing, and I expect complete silence from those around me, because I really like being drawn into a movie if it manages to spark my interest. Granted, this event rarely occurs these days, but when it does, I can't do it when some moronic child whose parents can't control it is mindlessly throwing popcorn at the screen and screaming "In bed!" after nearly every line.

I used to ask the talking audience member to be quiet. I kind of stopped doing so when after one day, it nearly lead to violence to my person. I wasn't being particularly impudent or even querulous in my request. Just goes to show exactly what kind of savages I find myself around on a disturbingly regular basis.

That being said, I've had to figure out a way to go and see movies that involve having the smallest number of audience members of the obnoxious sort. It really only takes one guy to ruin the experience for everybody, but if you consider the times you go, you can reduce the odds.

For instance, don't go at night - especially Friday or Saturday nights. That's the "witching hour" for dates, and also when the theater is most busy. The earlier you go, the less people are there. People have jobs and the ones that don't probably don't actually wake up until the afternoon, anyway. Going during a weekday at the earliest time is your best chance at a small, quiet audience - unless you're going to see a kids movie. Then you go at the latest possible showing, when it's past their bed-time.

The type of movie makes a huge difference, as well. Something like Star Wars can be watched at any time because everything in that movie makes a loud sound. The best part is, when there isn't a loud sound, there's loud music. You don't even have to follow the dialog that much. However, there are movies with a lot of silence, such as suspense films. It's difficult to build suspense as people see quietness as the perfect juncture to converse. When there is a difference between loud and quiet, they'll talk loudly during the quiet parts because they were talking loudly during the other parts, and probably have hearing issues. That, or they're just plain stupid.

The best movies to go to are the ones that don't bring out in droves the mindless automatons that now comprise a vast majority of America's youth and idiotic adults. Find something with subtext and/or subtitles. Either will drive away scores of people you'd rather not watch the movie. Of course, be careful with the subtitle thing. Sometimes, you get the ignoramus behind you that insists on reading them aloud. I had that problem with "Kung Fu Hustle," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," and a few others. I'd like to discuss which theater to go to, but I'd really rather not get into all of that.

It used to be that every movie I planned to watch in the theater required a unique formula for deciding exactly when the best showing would be to attend. I swear to you that going to the movies for me these days requires charts and spreadsheets. I don't go to movies hardly at all anymore due to financial issues. Besides, let's face it... when the DVD version comes out three months later, it turns out cheaper than the price of tickets, refreshments, etc. Sometimes, waiting is just worth it.

So, that's how something so simple as choosing when to go to a movie can become a mental struggle. I honestly have more fun thinking about abstract problems, but it's not like I can just turn it off when it comes time to have fun. This is how I have fun. If I see a movie and don't spend some quality time afterwards thinking about it, I consider it a waste of my time. Luckily, my thought process doesn't really require the movie to be any good.

Shutter Island is, of course, the only exception to this. That movie bored me within the first fifteen minutes.

And now... sleep. That's where I'm a pirate, after all.

Saturday, October 09, 2010

Plans

My friends, it is with great pleasure that I announce that I am now President of the United States, here today, in front of my adorning supporters.

Politics is not a topic that I am well-versed in, and, as such, I cannot sit here and tell you all the things that you want to hear. That will put me at a great disadvantage in the upcoming months, because what you want to hear and what you need to hear are not always the same thing.

I am aware of the greatness of this country. Not a day goes by that I am not reminded of what a wonderful and bountiful world that we exist in. However, not a day passes that I am also not reminded of the uncontrolled and unwarranted greed which permeates our entire being. I've seen kind men help little old ladies do their groceries, but I've also seen the same men risk their life and the lives of others running a red to shave a little time off their travelling.

I know what the people of America want, and I'm here to say that you cannot have it.

Everybody wants to be employee of the month. everybody thinks they deserve employee of the month. Problem is, nobody works towards that prestigious title. We all want something for free, and we want more than the next guy. We want to be powerful and rich, and we want it for nothing at all.

I'm here to tell you that you aren't stupid for thinking that, but you are wrong. We need to meet the basic needs of our country before we meet the needs of just you. We need to make sure that sickness is met with the best care. We need to ensure that our schools are filled with the best teachers. We need to guarantee that being poor does not mean being worthless. When money comes in and it is time to section it out, that money needs to go to the people failing to survive day by day, not the people who want a slightly larger television.

The rules of politics, as they are now, dictate that I shouldn't tell you this. They also dictate that I promise you a gold-plated care and your own personal parking space. They dictate that I should make you feel important. Well... you are. Just not like you think you are. We all live in the same society, and our importance in that society is distinct. But getting richer does not increase your importance, and being in poverty greatly destroys it. The way you increase your importance is not based on what you have, but what you do.

Do you have a problem with gays marrying? Abortion? Pre-martial sex? I do, but realistically speaking... tough. We all live in this society together, and I'm not about to let one group of people decide what's best for another group of people who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. How would you feel if someone came up to you and said that you couldn't worship God? I will protect your right to do just that, exactly as I would protect the right of any citizen of sound mind and body to make the decisions which concern their own welfare and nobody else's.

But what about the people who can't make their own decisions? What about the people who don't want to? These people are hardly worthless. Where they falter in one area, they can more than make up for in others. We will help these people not by making their decisions, but by educating them on how to do it on their own. Even when we help them, the decision to accept our help or go it alone will always be available to them. Only in situations where the well-being of others is at stake will we put in boundaries, and even then, we'll make sure they know where those boundaries are before they decide to cross them.

I'm going to raise taxes, because our government needs the money. We've got a war going on, and we cannot afford it any longer. We've got people dying around the world, and we can't help them. You're just going to buy an SUV that you don't really need, anyway. Tell me that you deserve your money more than a kid who can't get hospital care because his family members are all drug addicts. We've got sick people. We've got poor people. We've got people of one race or religion dominated by people of another race or religion. We've got mutated people, too. We've got crime. We've got wars. It's time to stop watching cable news, and it's time to start doing something about the stuff shown on it. That O'Reilly guy is ugly on an HDTV, anyway.

We live in a varied and beautiful country - just a small part of a varied and beautiful world. In the grand scheme of things, it may be small, but it is important to us because our country means something. It was built upon an ideal; an ideal which has guided our development and culture into a world no other culture could manage. This tiny little ideal has allowed us to explore creativity and technology and take it to extremes undreamed of by even the greatest thinkers of the past. We are done building on the past. We are now paving the future. All of this because of one simple ideal.

All people are treated as equal in the eyes of the law.

I think that we forget what that means, sometimes. We like to think of that when it benefits somebody, but not when it inconveniences them. It means that if people aren't being treated as equal, then we've got to enforce it until they are. It means that wants and needs must be separated and sorted by priority of the want/need itself - no matter how much taxes you pay. It means that schools in poor districts deserve to have the same quality teachers at the rich private schools. It means that if any one group gets too far away from the medium, in either direction, we need to start bringing them back.

You want a new car, but that's because your basic needs are already being taken care of. Some of them by us, the government. That you can even dream of purchasing a $50,000 vehicle, owning your own home, and sending your kids to college means that we are doing our job. But we aren't doing it as well as we used to. We're skimping on the important stuff.

Vote for me. As President, I promise to look out for all the citizens of the United States. I'm going to make a whole lot of you furious, because I'm not running the country the same way you would. Chances are, you may not see the effects of my social and economic plans directly for years, if ever. My name will not go down in history as the greatest President, because the things that to be done take time and they take money, and the immediate rewards are few and far between.

But it's worth it.

I love this country. I love everything that it used to stand for. It's now sick and broken, and I want to help it, because I don't want it to die.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Sick Men and Sugar Pills

For some reason that is entirely unknown to me, I cannot seem to find the motivation and/or inspiration to finish anything that I start, lately. It doesn't matter what it is, be it a book, video game, blog, parts to the book that I'm writing, or even dialog for the comic that I'm helping to create... I get about two-thirds done, and bam. Brick wall. I've started about four or five different projects, and haven't seen a single one to completion. The popularity - or lack thereof - of my opinions, ideals, theories, conundrums, statistics, and what not when it comes to life, religion, and the like seem based less on what I write, but instead on which side people come into the discussion with. My musings are less to convince anybody - which may be the one thing in this universe which is truly impossible - but just to say some stuff that's been flying around my head, driving me crazy. As such, nobody has been convinced.

This has led to me thinking about a lot of stuff. This rarely leads to good things, but it's what leads to things such as this blog. One thing that's been on my head lately has been something that I've been struggling with off and on my entire life, and it was brought up again on my cousin's Facebook earlier this evening. I can't, for the life of me, understand why, even after being hit in the face with practically irrefutable evidence, still maintain - sometimes even to the point of violence - that a book written in a time when alchemists attempted to turn lead into gold has any kind of merit to modern day life at all.

Full Disclosure: I'm speaking of Leviticus with that statement

Do people want to believe in something so much that they would prefer ignorance to true enlightenment?

Thinking about that, I noticed several other areas where such blinding belief is present. Politics, penis enlargement pills, money-making schemes, ghosts, Atkins, diet pills, and a whole other host of items and agendas. The problem, I think, isn't really these things in particular. I firmly believe that the problem is on the peoples end. These things all focus on fundamental desires and self-esteem issues that people want to believe work - they need to feel it works. They are all placebos for self-esteem.

Say you are a moderately overweight person, and this aspect of your life has caused much harm to your day-to-day living. You cant' get dates. Other people are constantly making fun of your weight. You are insecure to the nth degree. You see a commercial for an electric belt that shocks your muscles into exercising, all without ever having to leave the comfort of the recliner that got you into this position in the first place. The infomercial shows hot, bronzed, muscular bodies of people half your age. Forget for a second that they've got muscles in places that the belt doesn't affect. You want to believe that dream because the alternative is so distasteful.

So, you order the belt.

The first time you plug it in, your body sweats, causing the belt to short-circuit and electrocute you. If you think I'm kidding, I'm not. This kind of thing really happens.

Weight is something that requires knowledge and work to maintain. The fact that exercise is difficult and boring, and your day-to-day life is too busy to take the time, it is really easy to want to buy into a something-for-nothing plan. Even if exercise is beyond you, that weight problem still controls you.

The problem, my friends, isn't that you believe penis-enlargement pills actually work. It's that you want to believe. Your self-esteem is controlling you from behind the scenes to make you feel better about yourself. Even faced with evidence to the alternative, that need to feel okay is more important. Nothing is more important.

Right?

Anyways, when it comes to literal interpretations of the Bible, it isn't really about whether the Bible is true or not. According to science, it's not by any objective measure in existence. That's not really what the debate is about, though. It's really what the arguments are about. It's because for some people, to deny the Bible is to deny God. God is such a large part of their very being that not only would living without God leave a hole in their self, it would mean that those many years spent believing were a lie. The same could be said about scientists on the day that God decides to show Himself.

But see, that's all okay. You don't have to deny God to interpret the Bible in a different way. You just have to deny the way that you've been choosing to honor Him. That's difficult, and not something just anybody will jump in to. It is a problem at the very core of self-esteem, and self-esteem has a defense mechanism that could floor King Kong if it wanted. People die because of self-esteem. The only way to overcome it is to recognize what you are doing and make that choice. We can't make it for you.

I imagine that it must be a scary prospect to be alone in this universe; to go into nothingness when you die... to not have those pearly white gates waiting for you, or to have a giant friendly figure who has reason for even the most senseless events. when your friend dies, it's comforting to think that he or she is okay - somewhere out there. It's a fundamental fear that everyone shares, kind of like contracting cancer or being inadequate in the eyes of those you care most about.

What I'm getting at with all of this, folks, is that religion is a placebo effect. It exists to make you feel better, as well as to control you. No real purposes beyond that, as far as I'm concerned. But, just like the things I listed above, people can take advantage of that need to feel purpose. They can offer sugar pills for $50 and claim that they will make you more attractive and confident, and people will buy them. They are taking advantage of a tiny hairline fracture in our self-esteem, and some people aren't strong enough to fight it.

I am anti-religion, but by no means am I anti-God. There are a lot of good things that have come from it, sure, but only on a small scale. These are things like communities, good deeds, and a direction toward friendship. There are also a lot of bad things that have sprung up from religion, and they're quite famous. The Inquisition, the Crusades, people murdering doctors that perform abortions (which I find hilariously ironic), trying to discredit science to gain support for creationism rather than using science to prove it. Some people take advantage of this placebo to control you.

To blindly follow is built into our very genes. It is a natural consequence of living. The callow follow the strong-willed. You have to be careful of who you follow. A good leader is one who can follow his own agenda while making his followers think it's theirs, too. All I'm saying is beware. Quacks and charlatans are out there in force, and it would be a mistake to think that whatever you believe with all your heart doesn't have plenty of both.

Monday, October 04, 2010

Watch the Weather Change

It's been a while since I've posted in this blog. From the history, it seems that I haven't written in this dusty thing since May. Sorry about that, to those of you that are following.

A lot has been going on for me, lately. I find myself facing several paths in life, and I'm not quite sure where to go. I pray and pray, and yet the answer has still not been made clear to me. I'm not quite sure what it is that I'm supposed to be doing right now, at this very moment.

I suppose that's a lot of people, though.

The choices I find myself with are all pretty big risks. Two of them involve packing up and shipping off to places unknown, where I will have very little support beyond faith in friends. History has shown me that this isn't always the wisest of decisions, and yet... I can't help but shake the feeling that perhaps I should at least try.

Then again, I can stay here in Maryland and make a solid attempt at putting this apparent writing ability of mine to use. The work that I've been doing on my novel has been, admittedly, non-existent of late. I can't seem to find the motivation to write in this blog, much less working on something that could make my worries disappear.

My feelings, as always, shall remain my own. I'm not quite sure how to express myself beyond what I have already said.

This brings me to the point of this particular rambling.

This has been a good fall, so far. The weather is that perfect, crisp autumn weather that we can typically only read about in books. It is that perfect time of the year where the days are cool, yet comfortable, and the nights have the kind of chill that makes one want to sit on the couch, curled up with either a good book or a loved one, huddling together for warmth. It is a time for relaxation, a time for love, and, above all, a time for reflection within.

As much as I would love to go into some deep, somewhat philosophical, entirely full-of-crap posting, I'm afraid that I just can't muster that. I just tried, and it all came out as absolute twaddle. Hell, as I'm writing this, it's 4:30 in the morning. This doesn't leave much room for deep thought. While the previous paragraph - and even the posting title - lead one to think that perhaps what I have to say this morning is worthwhile, I assure you all that it is not. My brain is simply too full of garbage to allow sleep, and so I sit here and babble it all out into a digital journal that some read, but goes rather largely ignored.

This must be what the writers of the New Yorker feel like.