Words

Earlier this evening, I was listening to an interview where the person interviewed mentioned that there is no current cure for homelessness. I disliked the usage of the word "cure" linked to the state of homelessness. The usage seems to indicate that the state of being homeless is a disease or ailment. I think a better word would have been "solution". The word "cure" means to relieve a person of the symptoms of a disease or condition and the word "solution" means to solve a problem or deal with a difficult situation (yes, I looked them up to validate myself).

The issue I have in linking the word "cure" with "homelessness" also adds or reinforces the untouchable component to the unfortunate circumstances many people find themselves in. It alludes to disease and so, those finding themselves within that situation are also linked with disease. Of course, many may have ailments because of street life but it's more than that. It is the idea that the people themselves, because of the situation they are in, are synonymous with disease. They are disease not just diseased.

How then would a walking disease be treated by others who are people or human (those who have homes)? They would be avoided of course because their state of being might be catching which lends to a fear that I'm sure many have, that of becoming homeless. Well, it's one of mine, at least.

Words are powerful, often times, they mean much more than their definition.

Rabbit holes and comments

I gave myself a break. No, in actuality, I just didn't feel like posting. For the last day or two, I've been caught up in this absurd political circus. I am not a political junkie or an armchair expert on politics, so many times I might say things that spotlight my ignorance. However, much like everyone else, I have a poop hole (an opinion). Shit or gold may come out, or shitty gold but it's all still excrement because even my not-up-to-the-minute information or knowledge is just as shitty as those of the "well-informed". No one knows all of the "facts" or has a handle on the absolute or exact truth of the matter. Truth is malleable as is fact. Scientific truths/facts change or evolve while people of faith take their faith for truth/fact, no change or evolution in the dogma but perhaps a mutation can be had on the personal level. Truths in other arenas is also malleable and prone to change or evolution. What does this have to do with politics, my not-informed self and being caught up in the circus? Alignment. Informed or uninformed people align themselves with ideas that conform to their previously created notions. This is not news to many people, I know, but I have a feeling that this would be news to a majority of people. I have fallen, no, jumped into this hole willingly and blindly in my SM over the last few days. I have a friend who enjoys pointing out my mistakes, rarely do I get a hello other than, you f-ed up. I do appreciate his pointing things out, however, I don't appreciate that his only communication to me is during these times. But, that is my personal gripe. Getting back on my winding track, the reasons I've jumped blindly into this particular rabbit hole are: my alignment, this candidate said something I deemed a personal attack against my people, I felt tremendously guilty for not standing loudly against this candidate when attacks went out to other peoples, then I felt guilty because I questioned my voice against this person, wondering if only voiced my opinion because of his attacks against my peoples and I wanted to make sure that, if shit hit the fan someone would stand for me. So, I questioned my integrity. Questioning one's own integrity is an incredibly uncomfortable feeling.

So, I have decided that for my SM, it'll be cats and feel-good stories.

This brings me to this morning. Instead of looking for circus articles, I read a rebuttal from a favorite philosopher of mine. As I was reading it, I realized that it's much more fun to read pissing contests between academics/philosophers than the shitting contests of the circus. Besides the fun snide remarks and cleverly disguised insults, there is actually brain work going on (especially on this reader's part because that shit ain't an easy read), there are no buzz words or taglines and best of all, the comments.

Everyone knows that in ANY article, comments are THE worst thing to read because everyone does indeed pull apart their butt cheeks to show off their poop holes. In my experience, comments in the general media are not fun, are filled with anger, blame, and so many typos or evidence of a much needed overhaul of our educational system. There are no limits, no boundaries, and very little compassion or empathy in the comments of the general public in current news which seems to be more yellow journalism these days from print to television - whole channels dedicated to the sensational. I suppose that comments are like this because it's easier to cast blame or judgement, to see one side, to speak out against or applaud one's own alignment that the subject matter might espouse.

Comments on subjects in academia/philosophy are much more fun and less C) all of the above. There are catty and snide remarks but they don't often time devolve into calling other posters names, no one wants to do that, they'll just look ignorant if they can't defend their position/opinion in a well-thought out manner or, at least an attempt at a logical, less emotional, well-thought out manner. The one-liners are great too, these people are comics with a day job.

Here's the rub, those who comment on academic subjects are, I believe, more often than not, educated. Those who are not formally educated in the subject are interested in it and have informally educated themselves. This sounds elitist but is it really? It seems as though comments on general articles are written with spittle flying, mouths moving before thinking, really thinking. There are a few who try to provide a comment that isn't filled with blame, anger, alignment etc. but those are shouted down by those of a differing alignment and often times, the poster is called some name.

I have to leave this here because my youngest is on his keyboard making the most annoying sound. If my thoughts seem fractured, I'm going to blame it on being a parent. *wink*

These are my conjectures and observations. Am I speaking in an absolute? Absolutely not!

Note: my next entry will be on why I feel the need to talk shit about people I know in mediums like this instead of telling them to shut it to their faces.

Pennies from heaven

Pennies from heaven or accidentally falling out of a wallet. Yesterday, as I stood in line waiting for my overpriced coffee, a customer opened her wallet accidentally spilling all of her change. Scattered. What a PITA for her, right? My reaction, get down on the floor along with her and help gather the coins. What was the reaction of the customer who was directly ahead of me? To kind of halfheartedly sweep a couple of coins that bounced near her shoe over in the girl's general direction with her foot.

I wondered if the foot girl thought it was okay not to help simply because I was already getting my knees dirty? Or, did she halfheartedly sweep the coins because it would be the kind thing to do ... but she didn't really want help.

Thoughts that flitted through my head during this:

when I first swooped down to help, I wondered what the reaction would be if I had gathered up the coins only to shove them into my own pocket

I could swear feeling the foot girl's eyes trepanning the top of my skull from her observation post above us

If the coin girl is the type to help out a stranger no matter how minute the instance or if this simple action would be noted

Of course, my observances of foot girl is colored by my point of view, experiences etc and I may well be possibly well off the mark...

Honesty, honestly

After class yesterday I noticed a one dollar bill on the floor, actually I think I caught it fluttering to the ground from the corner of my eye. In the nano-second it took to register the bill, the other student who had turned as the bill had fallen and my hand reaching out to scoop it up, I thought the following and in this order:

~money!
~it probably is his
~no one would know if I pocketed it
~someone might see me and also know that the bill was his

I picked the bill up, then said "excuse me, I think you dropped something" and gave him the bill. He said thank you and I can't remember any facial expression registering as "surprise" at the money itself. It occurred to me, after I'd given him the bill, that it may not have been his. However, his deceit, if any, is not my problem. My action gave the impression that I was acting with a good nature.

However, was the action really a "good" one? Or, because of my thought process (the deciding factor being acceptable good deeds and shame if not done) not a "good" one (b/c it was done for show or to avoid shame - noted by the society or not) and not with the "right" idea of thinking the other person and their loss only as well as the idea that it was not mine. That leads me to wonder, if I did pocket it, suspecting the bill to be his, would that not make me a thief?

Knowledge in both giving it back (the selfish thought process and the decision made by acceptable "good" actions an "upstanding" person would make) and not giving it back (while having an idea of the owner) provide ... doubt(?) in what a person is or thinks him/herself to be, the kind of person. What's more, I wonder how many people can be honest with themselves and embrace/question/accept the selfish thoughts in their heads even while doing an opposite ("right")action and/or for reasons that a saint would disapprove of. Is it the end result that matters? A good action despite the drive stemming from selfish thoughts, fear or conditioning?

...how honest can we be with ourselves about the things we do and don't do? There is never %100 honestly even with ourselves ... but can most people be truthful about themselves to themselves when the self-image developing is not lovely? Or is corrupting who they thought they were/are?

Brooding

The breaking point, everyone has one for whatever negative feeling/situation. Whatever the breaking point is I wonder if the symptoms are the same for all.

I wonder if when feeling that things are just "too much", others feel a maelstrom of activity inside their skulls, a frenetic mounting of energy, an increasing wall of internal noise that mutes the sound of the external world with its' volume, and muddled and confused colors and memories or thoughts winding around one another.

I wonder if when beginning to feel the descent into "moodiness" or "feeling down", others sense a slow sinking in their minds or perhaps it's an enveloping cloud, casting a shadow over their prior state of normalcy, or even happiness, with an almost imperceptible sloth like movement. Sinking in slow motion. The world turns a darker shade and unclear thoughts bubble to the surface - where the only clear "thought" might be a vague feeling of overwhelming sadness without a distinct point of origin. The internal world becomes heavy with the descent, the body ... the abstract body felt by the mind, wrapped and suffocating in a cocoon. The world begins to look grainy, somewhat unreal, as the mind is swallowed by the slide into the void.

Philosophy & The Good Life

This was a nice read with my morning tea:

The question of the good life, I imagine, was simple in the days before cities. It was having enough to eat, a place to sleep, clothing, tools, family and a tribal affiliation. So the good life was one of freedom from want and hardship. However, once the necessaries were provided, human beings wanted more out of life. Theories arose about how life ought to be lived.

Those who had the time and inclination to think more deeply about the good life for human beings were, first, the religious poets and prophets, and, then, the philosophers. Religion taught people to live a good life as defined by a religious teaching. Religion, as it were, does the thinking for the people who do not have time to think things through for themselves. Philosophy, however, asks people to think for themselves, to question doubtful premises and assumptions using reason, logic, and experience to provide the best arguments for their own position, while being able to put forward objections to rival arguments, and to answer objections to their own.

Every familiar religion embodies a code of conduct, notions of purity and impurity, moral standards, and a strong link with something considered Divine. In some forms of Christianity, for example, the good life is one that is lived in loving obedience to God’s commands and in the belief that Jesus is the personal savior of humankind. This is a life of self-renunciation, service to others and asceticism. We know of it because of Divine revelation. We accept it on faith as a dogma of the religion. Other religions have other dogmas.

The philosophers I respect proceed non-dogmatically. They want us to examine the views that have been advanced, compare them, and then decide which conclusion is supported by the best argument. Looking around, the early philosophers saw that people pursue different things in life depending upon their desires. Some pursue pleasure, others wealth, fame, or power over others. It is the same today.

It turns out, upon philosophical reflection, that the satisfaction of these desires does not, in the end, make people happy. Those who pursue pleasure become jaded. The wealthy become habituated to their luxurious lifestyle. Fame palls and one is forced to live in the gaze of others. The quest for power breeds fear and suspicion in the powerful and in their subordinates.

Finally, there are some people who appear to pursue truth and wisdom rather than pleasure, riches, fame or power. These, of course, are the philosophers. To be honest, when philosophers talk about the good life, they stack the deck in their own favor. Whenever they discuss it, the good life is the philosophical life. This does not mean that they are wrong, but we should be cautious how we receive their arguments. There is no such thing as the good life for everyone, and neither philosophers nor religious expositors have any right to lay down the law about it.

Nevertheless, with this caveat, there are a number of things that the philosophical life has to recommend it. As Aristotle tells us, it begins in wonder at the universe and the spectacle of life. It proceeds through the cultivation of learning and reason, through the dialectical give and take of discussion, through awareness of varying points of view, and through understanding the pertinent questions to ask. Philosophers use conversation as a means of investigating reality. It is an integral part of the philosophical life. The Socratic method of questioning is a perfect example. In fact, Socrates embodies a certain take on the philosophical life. It is one that includes having a good memory for what people say, inexhaustible curiosity, and a desire to get to the bottom of things. Another key element is Socratic ignorance. A keen sense of how little we know is a valued asset in the philosophical life, as is a skeptical attitude toward all dogmatic religious or philosophical speculations. Finally, the philosopher requires a kind of courage to pursue arguments to their conclusions, whether those conclusions are welcomed or not.

As to the way philosophers should live, Aristotle puts it well in his Golden Mean: All things in moderation; nothing to excess. And we may add: Eat right, exercise and acquire habits of feeling, thought and action that lead to moral and intellectual excellence. The good life is a life devoted to the discovery and communication of truth within a community of like-minded people possessing moral integrity and a genuine desire to learn.

link to philosophy blog

The Wind

This is the desert I missed and remembered. High, cold winds that cut through flesh and bone, that shake leaves ferociously from their winter dried branches, that steal the moisture from unprotected lips, and breath from unsuspecting lungs.

It screams its' existence as it rushes, eddies, slam dances through the city and unpopulated desert alike.

It moves the heavy smog out of the basin, away from the mountain ranges, carrying it somewhere ... any where ... else.

It gives birth to sand storms that can deceive at night with the look of fog and uses individual grains of sand like tiny blow darts, aimed for bared skin and unprotected eyes.