[171] Fuck Tests

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 8:53pm

What do tests measure? The basic answer is somewhere along the lines of your aptitude in some subject. They are supposed to show that you can manage time, pick up new concepts, and retain them long enough to get your gold star. I've rallied against tests as long as I can remember, but haven't gone into as much detail for why I hate them so. My recent bomb of a law test will be prompting my digression for my arguments.

One of the most obvious problems I have with getting tested on material is the amount you are supposed to "learn." My law class for example has us read maybe ten pages before class. These ten pages have "relevant" information, at least with regards to a question he may pose to us, sometimes in every other line. Not only are we told to be responsible for this information, we're questioned about the cases that arise as stumbling blocks planted within each section. With law, as I'm quickly learning, you may have pretty straightforward definitions and methodologies, but simply knowing, or at least thinking you know, what that word means, does not mean you can apply it to some theoretical case that may or may not lie within some unsound assumptions. I've only watched documentaries and read about people who are able to take in, retain, and recite back this amount of information, and they all had some form of autism. Also, and I've said this before, if the "answers" are truly in our book, or can be found through google, or quoted back from our autistic friends, the test is only showing us how bad or good we can be playing pretend that we won't have resources. Furthermore, at least with law, you find that those "answers" aren't quite readily available regardless.

The next problem I have is with the types of tests were subjected to. It's relatively understood that if you memorize the answers to multiple choice questions, odds of you missing that question again, if it is presented in even remotely the same way, are not very high. Most of the time I find myself testing my ability to guess and deduce bubble patterns the professor may have slipped in to be ironic. The answer can be wrong or right, without any regard as to how the person was thinking or came to their conclusion. Test don't teach you or make an accurate assessment of how you think. For this they have "short-answer" or essay questions which basically test to see if you can fit in subjective key words the teacher is looking for, and refrain from using l33t text or writing "u" instead of you. The subjective nature behind grading those tests is rarely questioned but still riddled with petty favoritism and writing aesthetic preference.

Another huge issue I have with these things is all that they do not show. A test doesn't tell you if the person is an asshole who regardless of his memorizing abilities would never get a job given his demeanor and propensity to doosh-baggery. It doesn't tell you if that person is wildly imaginative, well connected, or has an unassailable motivation to push their potentially revolutionary self as far as it will go. It doesn't show the caliber of each teacher. It doesn't show how or what would convey to that student the information your school is so desperately trying to get you to learn. Tests completely muddy the idea that maybe you did pick up a lot or did in fact learn from your class, and that it is merely unlucky that the concepts you were questioned about were your Achilles heel. Tests don't even imply that there are other ways of going about living "the good life" or getting somewhere, because if they did, they'd test themselves out of existence.

I also disagree with what tests are "supposed" to tell you and your potential employer. Tests imply, at least when not passed, that you did "bad." They imply that your lazy, unmotivated, and slow to learn. The rational for these tests, keeping everyone on equal playing ground, pits you against people on this inadequate system's terms. Your now not as good as the kid next to you. Your not as capable. You just aren't "with it" or "worth it" in the same way as the ones who are "smarter." In my opinion, this isn't a competition that can be won. For those of you who know how strongly I endorse natural selection, particularly with regards to us, I'm not speaking against competition or means of measuring you against your fellow man, I simply think that tests and grades are an abhorrent ways of assessing that measurement.

I get done watching Slumdog Millionaire feeling ever resolved to elaborate in as many details just how badly this bothers me. A show where the "smarter" you are the more money you can make, turned on its ass by a kid who lived a dramatic, interesting, and compelling life relying on personal experience and guessing to win. No, I don't want the life that kid had, but yes I wish I had the freedom or system to work within that allowed me to learn and live in an equally compelling way.

I suppose my biggest problem, and this is intricately tied in with the school system itself and how people think, is that testing contributes to the litany of things distracting us from living productive and happy lives. When your focused on the test your not focused on utilizing what it is you have learned really well, or what may be intricately tied to your personality and potential. Your forced to subject yourself to their rules and their assessment. My P199 class harps endlessly with speakers telling you how to prepare and submit resumes, what it takes to get into grad school, how potential employers want you molded before they get started refining you. You aren't compelled or taught how to identify and resolve what you see as problems. Your given a task, then either padded on the head or given the task over again until the "correct" answer can't escape you. I'm tired of playing by the rules. I've been tired. It's only been relatively easy to ignore when the a pink questionnaire reminder hasn't been residing in my peripherals.

If I could drop out of school I would. If and when Mystik takes off it will be my focus because it will be an extension of me. It will always be relevant, provide excitement, require me to get better and learn more if I want more. I hope to incorporate and assimilate people who can and want to go as far as their ideas will take them, and use that to undermine and hopefully abolish what we currently understand as the education industry. Every doubter, every failed test, and every minute my focus is overwhelmed with the need to rant or worry makes me want to dart from my seat and pursue what the next step is.

I plan on appealing the wording and answer choices of some of these questions, and I fully accept the ones I label as stupid mistakes. I don't like how going to class, taking detailed notes, and reading don't contribute to what I feel my understanding of the concepts are. And frankly, I outright refuse to "put in that extra effort" as it's so unbearably misleadingly labeled, because to me it's actively killing my, for utter lack of a better word, "soul." I can't do it when I don't want what people tell me it leads to. I don't want grad school, I didn't want college after the first few months, and I didn't want high school or middle school either. I don't want to get a job working for some company chasing raises and recognition. I don't want to put myself under yet another thumb. I don't want to forgo my choice as to who I'm working with and why. (This is the point where you would be justified in worrying if I was suicidal) I don't want this life if I'll be ever surrounded by these unsound notions of happiness and success. I barely understand how I've put up with it for this long.

Written about 2 months ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

 You like this.

 Billy Bowman at 9:29pm February 10

Yup.
One rant of many, all covering the same idea, and yet some how they never get old. It's all still relevant.

I completely agree with your sentiment against tests, and our current educational system. I empathize with your feelings toward 'the system'. Preparing myself for a job so I can do repetitive meaningless tasks to earn enough money to have all the things I won't have time for because I'll be working 40+ hours a weak at best a disheartening and in reality a completely backwards and fucked up way to look at things. Learning for the sake of knowing, expanding your knowledge, and using it to learn more and better society is what our educational system should be about. It should most certainly not be about how to play (not even how to win) in a broken game.
...  Read More
When Mystik gets off the ground, we must put a stop to this game.

 David M.L. Jaffe at 10:53pm February 10

Why can't all classes be like Schrimer's accounting class?

 David M.L. Jaffe at 10:53pm February 10

Shrimper, Schrimper, however it's spelled.

 Billy Bowman at 10:53pm February 10

Schrimpers accounting class still has tests. A better 'test' of knowledge would be a practical problem you had to solve with the knowledge and skills obtained in a class IE. here's a bunch of business transactions, account them.

 David M.L. Jaffe at 10:54pm February 10

Well, aside from the tests I suppose...

 Nick P. at 4:11am February 11

More teachers like Schrimper, but the lives to go with the knowledge he's imparting on us. Not just following along in book only to relearn what you need when you actually start taking care of your business.

 Chris Cashel-Cordo at 1:11am February 13

Man, Schrimper rocked my world.

[75] Word Frivolity, Contemptible Logic (I Need To Start Smoking)

 Category: Religion and Philosophy

WOW. I just found the site Godtube.com and let me tell you….
I'm bereaved by the idea that people can use the bible for insightful looks into their lives and still remain coherent so I'm officially throwing it out. This one kid started talking about relationships and for a second I was going along with him right up until he started making those, for lack of a better word, bullshit statements that reside nowhere else but the bible. Textbook example "Know who you are in 'christ' before you figure out who you are with someone else." This is so logically incoherent and devoid of sense to me that I have to take a stab at it anyway. Why does no one ever decide to define how they view Christ? Are they aware Christ means anointed one, not Jesus? If I pretended to be a complete layman's person when it came to this sentence all I'd say is that I'm trying to be a good person and forgive. Apparently I'm wrong though, it's something so deep and profound that only you can convince yourself that it makes sense.

This speaks to the frivolity of words. Try one day to not speak and see if you can finally and truly express how you feel towards people or your needs. If you couldn't spout every dumbass catch phrase like "the bible is perfect" "jesus loves you" etc. how would you convey to someone that their eternal soul is in danger and they need to understand what your all about for their own good. My views about imposing that sort of thing in the first place aside, I bet you'd ACT and fucking do something besides crap in the face of basic logic and struggle with finding power behind statements like "Where you there?" and "Why can't you keep things in context?" If I can't convince people to get over the hump of pretending like we're not using the same language, then I'm completely fucked if I'm trying to make a (not usually vague) bigger overreaching point about the inadequacies about certain trains of thought. If I can put this more simply, I contend its bad to chuck apples at an infant and you come back with "well if you don't throw it that hard…." Your ignoring the fact that you don't throw shit at infants for reasons your pretending are in some different context.

After my ethics class and reading Sartre and Kierkegaard I walk away sort of recanting my idea that doing drugs or drinking are the same kind of excuse that faith provides. If man is simply the sum total of his decisions and by making those decisions, in a way, represents the whole of man then the substance abuser takes a backseat to the faithful. At least those things are conscious acts with evident results to everyone. The faithful denies they're role in making the decisions that glorify themselves, and thereby denies the idea that they significantly represent man. How they hold this conviction and still profess the truth and sanctity behind believing your nothing without acts in the name Christ is beyond me, but hey. They are this pitiful beleaguered majority that would simply love to emulate their god if it weren't for that pesky sinful nature. In other words when common sense and human experience actually give them a clue, it's just so much easier to pass the cup to their kids or bible or savior. If there is a bigger roadblock on the path to human progression please tell me.

I start my relationships with people trying to get to know them. I don't care to hear catch phrases of faith if you profess you're a Christian. Remember, I CAN and DO read people and as quickly as I see through my own bullshit I can see through yours. I'm well aware that you believe what you're talking about, I'm not convinced you realize how extensive you've become in your talk. There's a kind of honesty that people don't seem to care about anymore. I was asked why I take this whole god talk so seriously twice in the past two days. The short answer is for pursuit of that honesty. If you can pretend like everything is fine on the inside because you had the methodology handed or preached to you, I can't feel like I'm being a fair or true friend to you on the outside.

[77] Christians Are Rational (Not Mine)

I stumbled across the article which will hopefully emphasize why I do not wholeheartedly agree that everyone within the Christian faith is simply deluded or in need of an emotional crutch. What I thought was important about this article though was its use of examples to back up its ideals. The reason it is a problem when we talk about rationality and evidence is that it remains in a biblical context. After reading this I want people to realize that I am not saying they can't find good reasons and "proof" within their faith that makes sense to them. What I want people to realize is that every example, every stitch of evidence, is from the bible and therefore cannot (overtly) be considered scientifically or historically to be the truth or credible outside of the religious context.

Christianity is Rational
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

What do people mean by the statement, “That’s just your interpretation”? Many mean: “You have your view of what the passage means and I have mine. Who’s to say mine’s wrong and yours is right? We should not condemn each other’s views. We should allow each other to hold different views.”

We live in a “pluralistic” society. “Pluralism” simply means that various differing, even conflicting, views are permitted to coexist. This attitude is quite prevalent in today’s world. television talk shows constantly stress that there are no absolutes. Truth is subjective and relative to many people. They insist that there are very few, if any, definites—very little black and white, but a lot of gray.

The matter is muddled further by the fact that on any religious or moral question, there are knowledgeable, sincere authorities on both sides of the issue. The general posture of the American mindset is that since truth is so elusive, no one should be judgmental of anyone else; no one should be so arrogant or dogmatic as to insist that a certain viewpoint is the only right viewpoint.

Without even examining God’s Word, we ought to be able to see that this attitude, and this position, is self-contradictory and unacceptable. Why? Because those who espouse it insist that they are correct. They are dogmatic in their insistence that no one should be dogmatic. They hold as absolute and certain truth the fact that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, they have to deny their viewpoint in order to hold their viewpoint!

Only in religion do people take the foolish position that truth is elusive and unattainable. Only in the task of interpreting the Bible do people take the position that truth is relative, always changing, and something of which we can never be sure. We human beings often “reason” in religion in a way that differs from the way we reason in other facets of our lives—like driving our car or picking up our mail.

For example, when we go to the doctor because we are not feeling well, we communicate to him our symptoms and expect him to understand us. We expect him to gather all the relevant evidence (the verbal information we give, as well as the signs our bodies manifest) and then properly interpret that evidence to draw the right conclusions concerning our ailment and proper treatment. He then writes out a prescription that we take to the pharmacist and, once again, we expect the pharmacist to interpret properly the doctor’s instructions. We take the prescription home and read the label, fully expecting to understand the directions. The fact that doctors and pharmacists can make mistakes by drawing unwarranted conclusions about our condition does not change the fact that if they gather sufficient evidence and reason properly about the information, they can know the truth about our situation.

Every single day that we live, we interpret thousands of messages accurately. We read the newspaper, fully expecting to understand what we are reading. We read novels with the same expectation. We watch the news on television. We go to the mailbox, get our mail, and browse through it, fully expecting to interpret properly the messages being conveyed. The fact that misunderstanding sometimes occurs does not negate the fact that more information can be examined in order to draw the right conclusions and arrive at correct interpretations.

We go through this process constantly—every waking hour of the day, day in and day out, year after year. We give ourselves credit for having the ability to operate sensibly and communicate with one another intelligibly. Yet we turn right around and imply that the God of heaven, the One Who created our minds and our thinking capacity, the One Who is infinitely wiser and more capable than humans, is incapable of making His will known to humanity in a clear and understandable fashion! When we come to the Bible, we suddenly do an about-face and insist that we can’t be sure what God’s will is, we can’t be dogmatic on doctrine, and we must allow differing opinions on what is spiritually right or wrong!

Many people who claim to embrace Christianity ridicule and denounce logic, debate, argumentation, and emphasis upon being rational and reasonable. The practical effect of such propaganda is the upsurge of subjectivity, emotions, and personal taste as authoritative standards in religious practice. The Bible as the comprehensible and unchanging source of religious authority is thereby supplanted, and the Satanic severance of human culture from the God of heaven is complete.

The term “logic” refers to nothing more than correct reasoning. A person is logical when he/she reasons correctly. Being “illogical” amounts to engaging in incorrect reasoning. Does the Bible reflect affinity with the laws of thought and logic? Did Jesus, Paul, and other inspired speakers and writers argue their cases, prove their positions, and engage in rational, reasonable discourse? Please consider the following scripture references.

Jesus demonstrated incredible proclivity for rationality in His sharp, potent, penetrating use of logic and sound argumentation. His first recorded responsible activity consisted of a logical dialogue between Himself (at the age of twelve) and the Jewish theologians. Everyone was amazed at His understanding and answers (Luke 2:46-47). On the occasion of His baptism, He reasoned with John in order to convince John to go ahead and immerse Him (Matthew 3:13-15). He advanced a logical reason to justify the action!

Immediately after this incident, Jesus faced Satan in the desert. Satan posed three arguments, urging Christ to act on the basis of the erroneous reasoning that Satan set forth. Notice carefully the sequence of the disputation between the two, with special attention to Christ’s superior (i.e., accurate) use of logic to defeat His opponent.

MATTHEW 4:1-11 (NKJV)
Argument #1:

Satan: “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

Jesus: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ ” (Deuteronomy 8:3). Christ offered authoritative Scripture as evidence to contradict Satan’s conclusion. In other words, satisfying the legitimate need of hunger never must take precedence over the need to obey God and tend to spiritual needs first.

Argument #2:

Satan: “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.” This time, Satan offered Scripture (Psalm 91:11-12) as evidence to justify his proposal.

Jesus: “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ ” (Deuteronomy 6:16). Jesus countered with additional Scripture that demonstrated Satan’s misapplication of Psalm 91 to the situation at hand. In other words, Psalm 91, though intended to convey the care and concern that God manifests for the faithful, was not intended to apply to deliberately placing oneself in peril in order to force God to come to one’s rescue. God will take care of me, yes. But if I purposely walk in front of an oncoming car just to see if God will miraculously prevent my being struck—I’ll be struck! In the context of Deuteronomy 6:16, God was referring to the kind of testing/tempting that the Israelites did when they murmured, grumbled, and challenged Moses to produce water—as if God were unable or unwilling. For Jesus to have complied with Satan’s challenge would have placed Jesus in the same condition as the weak, unbelieving Israelites who “strove with” (chided, tempted) God (cf. Exodus 17:2). The only logical response to such a challenge was the one that Jesus, in fact, mustered: “Do not tempt God! Do not put Him to the test since such indicates your own lack of faith!”

Argument #3

Satan: “All these things I will give you if You will fall down and worship me.”

Jesus: “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord Your God, and Him only You shall serve.’ ” Jesus, for the third time, marshaled scriptural proof to show the falsity of Satan’s position, while reaffirming the Truth. In other words, based upon Deuteronomy 6:13, it would be sinful to worship Satan or anyone else except God. He alone is worthy of worship.

This marvelous demonstration of Christ’s mastery of debate and logical disputation is not an isolated instance. Jesus employed logic and reason throughout His earthly sojourn. He consistently responded to His contemporaries with piercing, devastating logic. He continually was besieged with questions and verbal tests to which He consistently displayed rational, reasoned response (Luke 11:53-54). Consider these few examples:

1. The exchange with the Pharisees over eating grain (Matthew 12:1-9).

2. The dialogue with the chief priests and elders over authority (Matthew 21:23-27).

3. The interaction with the Pharisees over taxes (Matthew 22:15-22).

4. The response to the Sadduccees concerning marriage and the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33).

5. The argument posed to the Pharisees over the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 22:41-46).

6. The demonstrations of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:14-16; 14:1-6).

7. The response to the lawyers concerning the source of His miraculous power (Luke 11:14-26).

8. The answer concerning fasting (Luke 5:33-39).

9. The handling of Simon’s disgruntled view of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50).

10. The exchange with the Pharisees concerning His triumphal entry (Luke 19:39-40).

11. The comments upon the occasion of His arrest (Luke 22:47-53).

Jesus was so sensible and rational in His discourse that when hard-hearted Jews declared Him to be mad or demon-possessed, others countered: “These are not the words of one who has a demon” (John 10:21). Indeed, Jesus consistently provided evidence, even empirical evidence, to substantiate His claims (John 10:24-26,36-38). How could anyone possibly question the fact of Jesus’ consistent use of logic and correct reasoning? He was, and is, the Master Logician Who created the human mind to function rationally! His inspired disciples followed His example.

The apostle Paul was a master of logical argumentation in both oral and written proclamation. Shortly after his conversion, he entered upon a life-long career of debate and rational discourse. Examine carefully the terms that the Holy Spirit selected to describe Saul’s verbal activities:

“confounded” and “proving” (Acts 9:22)

“reasoned” (Acts 17:2)

“explaining and demonstrating” (Acts 17:3)

“reasoned” (Acts 17:17)

“reasoned” and “persuaded” (Acts 18:4)

“reasoning and persuading” (Acts 19:8)

“explained and testified” and “persuading” (Acts 28:23).

These terms all connote rational, logical activity! Paul’s magnificent defense of the resurrection was couched, by inspiration, in logical thought forms. Identified in formal logic as a series of hypothetical propositions (“If...then...”), Paul carefully brings the reader to the irresistible conclusion that “Christ is risen from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

How typical of Spirit-inspired writers! When Paul charged Titus with seeing to the appointment of qualified bishops on the island of Crete, he noted that elders must “be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). Elders must be debaters who can refute false teachers! No wonder that, when Festus accused Paul of being crazy, Paul coolly countered: “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). Paul was answering the charge of insanity by arguing that his words were sensible, logical, and reasonable! Compare the same word in its verb form (sophroneo), used to refer to the demoniac after the expulsion of the demons, rendered “in his right mind” (Mark 5:15).

Luke engaged in the same sort of rational enterprise. He wrote both his gospel and Acts that Theophilus and subsequent readers might “know the certainty” (Luke 1:4), and to identify “proofs” (Acts 1:3) for the purpose of convincing. These terms connote rational activity! Apollos, likewise, employed logic and reasonable discourse. Study the terms that are used to describe his verbal activity—“vigorously refuted” and “showing from the Scriptures” (Acts 18:28). Peter followed the same logical approach to his religious work. On the momentous occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ in Acts 2, Peter advanced four lines of argumentation, meticulously based upon scriptural evidence, in order to drive at the conclusion: “Therefore...” (Acts 2:36).

The reader is urged to pause and read the following passages: Proverbs 14:15; Isaiah 1:18; Acts 17:11; Philippians 1:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:15,25; 1 Peter 3:15; 1 John 4:1; Jude 3. These passages demand rational, logical, cognitive activity! They, in fact, make absolutely no sense if attention to logic is unimportant to God or unnecessary!

We must not succumb to the humanistic hurricane that is assaulting our country. With this destructive storm have come the winds and waves of existentialism and pentecostalism. These violent and damaging forces have seeped into the church of our Lord. We must awaken out of our slumber and do all that we can to salvage and save all who will manifest receptivity to the reasonable truths of our God. Now, more than ever before in recent history, we must remain unwavering in our proclamation of “words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). We must understand that living the Christian life means living a rational life.

[74] A New Kind of Calculator

Can one put a value on experience? Is knowing what drinking or smoking will do to you worth that "five minutes of your life" when you tried them just for the sake of knowing? I'm confused on what should be considered valuable.  Granted, we could all potentially drop dead at any given time, but is that thereby an excuse to indulge? Want does our experience grant us? Not necessarily anymore applicable knowledge, but knowing and feeling apparently don't satisfy happiness on the same plain.  Is it perhaps better to forsake such experiences aspiring to something greater; if there is such a thing. It's killing me to actually start believing that people who smoke, drink, try "just that one time" a certain drug or another could really be understanding something greater about life that eludes me. Are they even bothering to compare whatever it is they get out of those activities to something better? If so, why bother wasting time, money, and effort on something that isn't going to give you the most out of life? Suppose your madly in love, are those months or years which have been taken off your life worth it if they would have instead been spent growing deeper in that love? Perhaps there is a different sort of affection, a different love you can only get from each sweet drag. Is there a different love in making catch phrases like "insufficient cancer" with your friends to mock the threat; some kind of love of one's work or family can't touch?

After watching Resident Evil of all things I start to think. The worlds essentially getting there sooner or later and by that time who cares how quickly you can degrade your body. It struck me as interesting to see the characters still had time to put crosses over sandy graves. What is this faith? The worse and worse things appear, the more grounded people can become in it. Conversely, you don't believe any of it and remain content doing whatever, secure in thought you're going to die anyway. Either method to me, seems as though it's a back road. The faithful can miss that job opportunity, move on from failed love, find peace with death. The non-caring nonbeliever can say fuck the job, she was probably a whore, let's party till we die. Isn't there something huge missing from both routes? Actions and lives are being excused, not expressed. When something doesn't work its disregarded, degraded, to the level of perhaps how the people view themselves. "I'll be good enough in the next life, I'll be forgiven and happy then" and down goes the immediate stress of the problem. "There's nothing else to do, I really like it" and then who needs a fact sheet from some truth guy or warning label. Is it not the allure of feeling high or being drunk that's so tantalizing, but instead the chance to find an excuse? Not just an excuse, but one you didn't have to think hard about justifying. One that is reinforced and exalted by 95% of the people you will ever meet.

So now maybe we're all just (good) excusers. Those that can handle the freedom do what they want, those that can't find an institution to (help) them handle it. I've no problem believing there are people of faith who don't live within the excuses realm and are at the helm of why good things get done. I've an even easier time believing that many more fit in elsewhere. What are the non-believers options? Are there not just as many who mirror the headliners of faith? Of course there are. So what is so fundamentally different about these kinds of people that truly keeps them at ends? I think the answer lies in the reward. The religious person has something to answer to. They have consequences, quite serious ones indeed, and for all their worth must fight to stay on that track to heaven. The non-believer gets the feeling of being righteous, good, and loving for their own sake. They get to wrestle with where and how knowledge fits in relation to those things and not treat it as an endowed truth to frequent to the masses.

I've heard enough personal testimonies of how wonderful a certain pill is or how uninhibited jungle juice will make you. I know how deep and meaningful people talk about their "relationship" with Christ and his overflowing love. Neither road would take me to the level of experience I'm after because, both are used to excuse why others aren't finding it.

[170] Naughty Teacher

Friday, January 23, 2009 at 1:53am

I think the most disagreeable part of college is the range in caliber of teachers you can either enjoy immensely or loathe indefinitely. Take my Business G300 class. This guy is just another business major who, by way of pressure from his foreign parents, decided to focus on managerial economics. He doesn't necessarily need to know anything more about teaching than what you can read from the book. He isn't worried about how fast he talks or what he takes for granted as the previous amount of knowledge the class has. He doesn't realize that while you can get the bulk of what he's saying, when you so horribly pronounce a word that you've basically just translated it into your foreign tongue, it only serves to distract and confuse, which trumps the smirk you may want to crack. I keep finding examples of people who are, by all accounts "smart" in the field they are so affluently projecting, but don't even realize there is something to be said about the method in which something is taught. This I believe is true regardless of the subject or nature of the work.

It's one thing to give some equation, which in truth you can understand isn't that hard or confusing, but easy to mess up if you haven't seen it previously. One can always go into the book or even google something that fundamental if you miss a term or something. It's quite another when you hurriedly scribble the equation on the board, pointing to this and that, filling in terms seemingly pulled from nowhere, solving it, replacing values and making arbitrary erases and re-done scribbles, then posing the token question "any questions." All the while reminding us that you got your degree in Turkey. This might come as a shock to some of you, but I don't think myself too retarded of a person. So explain to me why I'm taking a class that would almost assuredly make more sense to me if I had Mr. Bowman teaching me? I don't care that he'd cost more and would want a handy in the bathroom, I just want a B and to get the hell out of this place.

Despite the previous teacher, I also have accounting, which is basically a class I never want to end. The teacher keeps things interesting by alluding to personal stories and tying them into what's on the agenda for the day. Everything is broken down to it's fundamental component before it's used in an example or further story. He even contributes numerous stick figures who live these exciting money grubbing lives on this chalkboard turned canvas. I simply wonder why more teachers can't be like that. It makes more sense to me why home schooled kids are generally smarter. They learn something, then move on. They get to do it in the comfort of their own homes and usually with the enthusiasm of the parent who's taken on the task. Here, we're forced into their schedule, their teaching "styles," and their abhorrently expensive books which have the wondrous caveat coin toss on whether they'll get bought back or not.

What still kills me, and has absolutely been confusing to me since I first started, is the logic behind assigning twenty or thirty pages of reading, saying "you'll be responsible for that" and then quizzing us on the information weeks later. First, maybe this is a key skill I lack, but the second I read something it isn't as if I just download it and store it to be recalled when test time comes around. Second, if your going to make us read it, and then not discuss 80% of it in class, it's who's guess as to what is more important or relevant when the questions roll in. Third, most of the time the assigned reading isn't from a Harry Potter book, meaning, it's foreign material, admittedly hard to understand, or almost incapable of being appreciated without the foreknowledge of how and why your suppose to read something some way. That said, the 30 pages I had to read and take notes on in law, aside from definitional things, I'm not going to have the remotest idea how to deconstruct some case when every other word is legal jargon. And yes, I go back and read, re-read, re-re-read, slowly try to interpret, and still take notes.

The problem isn't that I won't spend hours on something if it's relevant, interesting, and required(shudders), the problem is with the system and teachers that aren't designed or trained on the best methods for getting information encoded within the students. It's some kind of sick irony when my law professor can joke about students who've taken his class, and then worked as his tempts or assistants, who've said "huh, I never remember talking about any of that." This followed by a chuckle from both him and the class. If your not going to remember it, if the person teaching you can laugh at the idea that you didn't retain what THEY "taught," what the hell does that say about all the "learning" going on?

The only other class I have that could possibly be described as "hard" is philosophy of mind. This too has it's problems. I like philosophy, I like the idea of it, most of what I've read of it, and want to know more. What I don't want to do is try and decipher old English and mash it with some conjured, heavily misunderstood notion of what I take the text to be. Why don't I want to do this? Because it's been done, over and again, in many languages, and every question we have about the text, someone has a page devoted to it either online or in another book. It's great to hear about different schools of thought, and the reason some philosopher you at first took be almost too stupid despite his brilliance, now seen in a different light. I think it's utterly frivolous to struggle through and confuse yourself when the answers are already out there. Another tragic irony, my independent study of philosophy brought me to some of the highest points in my life, while my academic pursuit of it makes me want to kill myself.

In truth, I think the teachers, students, questions, and answers should be transparent. Give me the final the first day of class. Tell me the entire paragraphs that will be wholly ignored this semester. Put me on a web cam if you have to to prove that I'm actually doing the work because at that point I would feel inclined to work knowing exactly what it is I'm working towards. They incessantly tell you they want the information to be relevant to you, they want you to be able to use it in the future, it will be helpful for jobs, etc, but at the end of the day, all anybody cares about is passing the tests. I'd say it's a foregone conclusion that you don't really need to have learned anything to merely pass a test. I think you shouldn't be allowed to have a school where one semester I'm taking a class in which the final is made up of previous identical test questions, which were made from quizzes, of which we were shown the answers next class, then onto business law where a mere quiz could be a random sampling of the panoply of information taken in from the reading and lecture.

I don't believe most people that excel in life have that downloadable information memory either. I think they simply know how to find information, implement their ideas, rinse and repeat. I think they know so many people that they are automatically best suited to make better decisions because of those contacts. Things get done, experienced and not just learned, because they are devoted to and excited about the people and subject they're dealing with. If this is all just "practice for the real world" why are pretending like we won't have the resources to get the job done? Why aren't we practicing all the social aspects of a business that can potentially make or break it? Why play like we'll be alone in some field with a book and given an hour to solve some company's salary crisis? Yes, you need a certain amount of knowledge to be in charge of anything, and yes you need specified and refined knowledge in areas to do even remotely well or handle unforeseen problems. You get these skills by practice, not memorization and tests. You learn from people who've took the time to learn how to teach to you instead of taking for granted the whole class is on the same page. Your shown the actual results and how they pertain to your life in particular. I'm going to overwhelmingly prove my theory is correct with Mystik.

 David M.L. Jaffe at 9:35am January 23

You have Schrimper, don't you? Dude's fucking sweet. And it's probably the only business class I'll ever find entertaining and informative at the same time. Sigh...

[76] Playing By The Rules (Not Mine)

3:40am Monday, Jan 21

Postscript for Those Who Still Cling to Their Objections

Suppose two good friends come to you to resolve an argument. Friend A is a fanatic about soccer, Friend B about basketball, and they have been having a long, fierce argument about which game is the one true game and which one should become the official sport of the community. Friend A argues that soccer must be the one true game because in soccer no one other than the goalie is allowed to pick up the ball during play (except to throw it in if it goes out of bounds) and because one has to propel the ball with one's head or feet. Friend B argues that basketball must be the one true game because in it players have to propel the ball with their hands and are not allowed to kick or head the ball. Both appeal repeatedly to the rule books in their hands to insist upon the rightness of their cases and to point out the imperfections in their opponent's argument.

What would you tell them? Well, if you're still objecting to the argument for evolution, I have no idea what you would say. But in the sprit of reason I would tell them that their argument is stupid. The better game is a matter of choice, and appealing to the rule book of one game to discredit another game is irrelevant. Moreover, there is no super rule book in the sky which adjudicates between these games. So they can play soccer or basketball and abide by the rules of the game they choose, or they can play both if they're prepared to switch from one rule book to another. But to demand that one game is inherently "right" or "better" and the other one "false" or "worse" in any absolute sense is, as I say, silly. And it's equally silly (and probably more dangerous) to show up on the soccer pitch demanding the right to play by the rules of basketball, or vice versa.

In what way is this example any different from the interminable arguments between evolutionists and creationists (arguments which, incidentally, are not particularly interesting or challenging philosophically, scientifically, or theologically)?


[This text, which has been created by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, in in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged--released January 2005]

[73] Just Give In

I just got done re-watching Tony Robbins talk at TED and it helped to remind me of something important. Why happy people can stay happy and sad people sad centers around one thing. Giving.  When you have nothing to offer, nothing to give, and no place that cares or needs to learn from you consequently you feel like shit. I know that personally this sentiment makes sense especially when I think I have something to offer that isn't being utilized. I think many people don't realize what they are in fact giving in the first place. This would account for why it is so easy to drink, smoke, and randomly hook up as "cures" to the (sub)conscious ailment.  Hell, come to think of it, this probably does make sense for why people are in shitty relationships and pretend they are puppets of their religions.

    When someone doesn't give anything to themselves it is easy to see where an emotional giving crutch mechanism can take hold of their minds. "I'm too fat, stupid, lonely.. ect." Translates into "he/she needs me, I can excuse that, at least here's something, anything, to do." Robbins used the example of violence and guns to make a street punk go from nothing to significant in the blink of an eye. What do we use in college. The trinity; alcohol, drugs, and sex. Maybe you don't have a personality, anyone to coach in class, or athletic skills, but you can hook up anybody to anything if they want it. Parents riding you about grades and your future, mine too, puff puff give. Its only about fun though right? Let's just kill the monotony of everyday life and forget. We're social animals and this is the most common way to just blend in and associate. 

    It's really hard for me to understand that reasoning because 1. I can't imagine how fun it is to balance between walking straight, losing clothes, and maybe throwing up (Which, if we're being honest is usually along the road of foreseeable futures if you like to party) 2. People perpetuate their own situations, if you think life is boring, your making boring choices, 3. I don't want to forget. I can barely remember things that should hold significance as it is let alone justify actively retarding my brain that much more, 4. I fit in with people who fit themselves. If you have an identity then there is no need for a pathetic excuse like alcohol to keep any sort of relationship we have in tact or worth it. By offering booze and drugs your offering nothing and then to feel confused about why I don't take it is to remain baffled by your own lack of self fulfillment. Nothing that even hints on a border of the aforementioned is remotely close to being a good excuse to drink.

    How does this then play into the religious mindset? Well they're giving the Word of God. They are giving love, truth, and hope. They are giving the secrets of the universe. Is there anything more empowering? When one hears these claims and then watches that same person stay constantly depressed or self defeatist and yell  "God damn it!" as they stub their toe on the way out of church, is it that hard to see just how little it is that's being given? I have this one friend Tapper who's definition of God is love. Tapper's a pretty loving guy so go figure the religious mindset or lifestyle works exceedingly well for him. I have other friends who are in the habit of making a bunch of the claims above in one hand, living and feeling another way in the other hand.  The way religions work are the same way drugs work in that they provide an "escape" from yourself and "work" to make you forget about the down pour of negativity. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it kills your body, it is just a means for an end you can't reach.

Connect with yourself, connect with people, go do shit. It's a seemingly simple enough formula.

Tony Robbins talk Here

[72] I Get To Play Scientist

Lol to stiffen the increasing boredom of being awake in this town I've started to go to all the inspirational video's praising "god" (specific one not included) and comment to all the people who think they are some authority on evolution let alone physics. It's is so funny and sad to be able to see right through every logical fallacy and trigger words. For example with someone says 

"I LOVE JESUS" they almost automatically get 8 thumbs up. That happens as well to the statement "God sent Jesus to forgive us, no matter what we've done he still loves us" along with any statement starting with god sent. Now on the other hand, if someone has a comment around "I like this particular musician, this song is so whatever" they get the basic one or two thumbs and moved on from.

I think pointing out these variations is key to understanding just how and why people all are seemingly professing the same thing, but not really lol. I come to these videos right after watching Darren Brown con people out of money, their keys, and a diamond ring using very simple mind tricks. If anything he's taught me to not go through life simply projecting whatever the world has to offer. These people aren't so lucky. Even the lyrics in the songs are repeated endlessly. All I can think of is that spiraling black and white wheel or a watch going back and forth as someone in the background convinces me I'm sleepy.

There needs to be something that can explain to these people the difference between objective and subjective experience. I already know the comments that will come back, so just for shits and giggles, I'm going to make a short list and compare notes for if/when these people get back to me.

1. Jesus died for you! How can you say the bible isn't perfect? It's the inspired word of God!
2. You think you're so smart? How did the big bang happen? Scientists have confirmed the bible many times.
3. My personal life story of hardship and woe turned out ok, Jesus did it, what do you think now?
4. Who put the monkeys and cells on the planet to start evolution?
5. I'm going to pray for you
6. Why do you have to attack me? Can't you just let people be happy with what they believe?

If I'm right, and I'm guessing I am, I'll be able to copy and paste whatever they send me and place it neatly into one of those categories. I want to play scientist apparently and am having so much fun just reading these people's comments let alone coming up with witty comebacks of which are over their heads. I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner.

[71] Jesus Camp And Degrassi

Something I think would be an amazingly fun and hysterical undertaking would be a documentary on the day to day lives of people like the ones in Jesus Camp. I was kind re-watching it on A&E and as angry as I get towards people I personally interact with, I'd probably squeeze off an aneurism and erupt into convulsions after spending more than a few moments with these characters. I find it intriguing that when you show a movie like Jesus Camp to the faithful they get just as pissed off as a non-believer. "Those terrible people who just want to make war and make kids cry are abusing my bible!" the religious person wanes, "That isn't my faith." The fact unfortunately remains that it is in fact, your faith, just not how you choose to see it. All those baseless and simpleton statements did just come out of the person praising Jesus and now perhaps you feel guilty that you pretended there wasn't a problem? I can only imagine what it would be like to be an unarmed apologetic for all the problems I never cared to learn about. In other words, this is an appropriate time to give up and not feel bad. 

Its like the show Degrassi. These kids have so much drama and every bad combination of teenage problems in the world happen to them. I doubt the show would do so well if it wasn't constantly reminding people how screwed up things can get when the right way to fix things is ignored. All those lies and hurt feelings, tears and fights. For one reason or another we revel in the idea that it's not real, or isn't happening to us. HA! I defiantly say. In the same way we like to pretend with shows like these, we are susceptible to taking such a blaze atmosphere about our own lives.

Having gotten far enough into my book that I'm reading some of today's authors who's books I've already read, it isn't giving me much to go on. The tv is doing a pretty good job of getting the thoughts moving though. I feel so cynical because I want to play on those insecurities of our species. People will tell you how to manipulate them, if you're listening correctly. I thought it intriguing that on this list of 20 billionaires, like half dropped out of school or never had any schooling. You think they learned a thing or two about people as a means to get to the top?

It just kills me to think about how quickly people are ready to destroy a good thing. Maybe it's because they can't recognize it for what it is. Always pursuing something better so much farther than their mere beauty or knowledge can take them. Running and never going anywhere, inventing excuses for things that simply "are." Loners get that point, at least the ones who aren't manic depressive. Some innate ability to find the happy or at least contentment as the norm and just handling issues as they come. That giant group of followers on the other hand are all too ready to pass their lives onto god or their love of Jesus as it turns out they are but humble sinners and this scary world of satanic influence is just too over their heads. Crappy relationship? Ahh I'm in one with god, so whatever. Someone died or better, isn't dead yet from drugs or a violent lifestyle? Psh we'll catch up when I get to heaven. Books and science? God will reward me for keeping my piety, says so right here.

I just really don't like lies. No, I don't want to confess every bad thing I've done to the world and wouldn't expect the same of you. At least I don't kid myself . Wish wish wish monkeys, dance dance dance. No one wants to live forever. Will your death be the culmination of stress and lies which have taken their toll, or the legacy of a truly fulfilled life?

[68] Little Side Note

Reading through old blogs I started in on the one where I completely snapped and went off on Neven. So, given that I was a pretty big dick I'll apologize for that aspect. I still hate and disregard the stuff that you responded with and could go on for days about why it's wrong, but it's not worth it. I do understand that civility will get me farther and attempting to remain calmly resolute amid discourse, but that does not mean I will excuse quote mining, very poor quote mining at that, and meager stabs at representing scientific discourse.  Like reading back on your answers dude…I'm just glad it's been a while since I've faced it again. I mean if my questions where bear traps you would've rolled down a hill littered with them and frankly I wasn't prepared to handle that. I don't really want to be a dick, it has its perks, but ultimately it's not a fun place to be. I had to be a dick to myself to get over things and learn things so perhaps it's the only way I can relate knowledge, who knows. The bigger issue is seeing so many things, I mean soo many things, that were just like "uhgabsdkalsjd" I'd need a forest fire of reformation to sort through and correct it all. Witty analogies aside I'm just taking this side note time to realize that it'll never end. I'll miss plenty of opportunities to share real experiences with people simply because they profess a certain faith. The same arguments will be drug up and dusted off over and over for as long as there are people. I will continue to still feel accomplished and yet completely ridiculous for the time spent on these blogs. Great.

[70] Genesis Revisited by Michael Shermer

To convey the logical absurdity of trying to squeeze the round peg of science into the square hole of religion, I penned the following scientific revision of the Genesis creation story. It is not intended as a sacrilege of the poetic beauty of Genesis; rather, it is a mere extension of what the creationists have already do to Genesis in their insistence that it be read not as mythic saga but as scientific prose. If Genesis were written in the language of modern science, it would read something like this.

In the beginning-specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon-out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created from Quarks) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion, And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing, so he created Earth. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 B.C. This was confusing, so God created tired light, and the creation story was preserved. And created He many wondrous splendors such as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different form their relatives on the continents, so that still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants created by adaptive radiation. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God saw that the land was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and they equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.B. that were similar to but different from living creatures. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, the fishes. And God created great hales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals he would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. And God said, Natura non facit saltum-Nature shall not make leaps. And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

And god created the pongidids and hominids with 98 percent generic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, in one chapter He said he created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said he created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.

And in the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One chosen as his special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. And God realized this too was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.

Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of the creation God realized that Adam's immediate descendants would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so he created creation myths. But there were so many creation stories throughout the world God realized this too was confusing, so created He anthropologists and mythologists.

By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrunneth with skepticism, so God became angry, so angry that god lost His temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). But the humans took God literally and now there are six billion of them. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, "Thank me it's Friday," and He made the weekend. It was a good idea.

[168] Life Is Very Short, And There's No Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime

Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 6:43am

It's not that Steev and I are always fighting, it's that I never understand her. Or I guess better said, I don't understand how we relate beyond a physical and semi-cordial manner. I don't love her even remotely in the way I love/d Nikki. We've had however many talks about breaking up, even setting a date at the beginning of summer. Simple things like text messaging don't even go over well. I say something I think is pretty straight forward or completely sarcastic and funny, she responds with what's, why's, and how's that don't even make sense to me. It's literally as if I asked her about her day and she decided to scorn me about the cancer growing in my lungs from polio. It just doesn't make any sense to me. And then when it comes to sex, you'd think that would be a mutual thing. Takes two people, involves each other's pleasure zones, but the way she comes across is as if she's granting it to me because I want it. Like she pities that I'm horny. And if I make some sort of sexual innuendo comment she takes it to mean that I'm just trying to have sex for her, as if I could possibly not enjoy it. She'll call me and we'll have nothing to say to each other. I'm bad at small talk and know it. She tells me I'm the only one that she can't have hour long random conversations with on the phone. I'm sitting here thinking, there's no reception, I'm doing nor have done anything remotely interesting in the past two weeks, and despite me just telling you that I was reading I'm still staring off into space, dead air in my ear.

I shouldn't have to respond to "Do you like it" with regards to my relationship with, "That should be an easier question to answer." There are perks sure, You get to wake up with someone, you get to talk and hang out, share the burden of and mutually support things. In my world though, I've gotten past my previous conceptions of what a relationship would do for me. I really do like and get excited by many girls and the idea of talking them into things, spending time with all kinds of different people, and playing my own game. Now, all I feel is restricted by the rules of formality, cordialness, but mostly her feelings. The fact that she really cares about me is making me make myself suffer through an uneven and, personally understood as, mismatched relationship. I didn't like being alone because it was boring, not because I was aching to have a girlfriend. The only reason I started talking to her in the first place was because I saw that she was someone who would be worth knowing, messing around with, getting back into the swing of things. This relationship isn't fair to either of us and yet it will persist and I think I'm just making another game of finding a way to be happy in the midst of it. I'm not sure if this is healthy or practice. The fact I don't see those two relating to each other doesn't help. She'll survive without me and I her. We'd get along well enough to keep Mystik going, I hope. This is truly all my fault for breaking my own rules and acting against my nature in the name of experimenting.

She doesn't love me. Not in the way I felt for Nikki. Keeping that in mind is allowing me to drag this out without thinking it's just digging some hole. I already know she will probably get hurt. You can't explain to someone that you care, but at the same time don't give a fuck. I don't want my friends hurt. And that's what she is. A friend I have a committed relationship with. But people are ultimately responsible for themselves. I can't say I haven't been honest, but I've had to be "nice" enough with that honesty. When I honestly acted in exactly how I understood the situation, she thought I betrayed her. When I'm too honest about what I'm thinking or feeling, she gets hurt and thinks I'm going to cheat or thinking that she's lacking in something. She refuses to accept that she's who she is and needs to express that and not think it needs to be sacrificed for me. That's how I can say that I just don't give a fuck if she's going through some emotional turmoil. She's not retarded, she stands strong and she understands, I hope, what's going on. She is choosing to be in this just as I am, but I feel like I will always see things more clearly. Or at the more desperate level, always feel confused about what she means, where she's coming from, and why she doesn't understand the simplest forms of expression I can engage in.

This coupled with my ability to cut people off, be unbearably mean, drive to fuck with, and inability to sympathize with those that choose to suffer under what I deem retarded circumstances isn't good. I guess the quick thinker would point out that I seem to be suffering in confusion and lack of love. But I think suffering implies more desperation, more feeling of being out of control or unable to pull the trigger when absolutely necessary. I am not suffering through having a cute girlfriend that I basically get along with who's ambitious and smart enough to want to endeavor down a road with Mystik and social manipulation. That's far from suffering. A girl that will pop the pimples on your back is a keeper, so why can't I just be happy? The obvious answer, my overall happiness thus far has entailed a more encompassing social and sexual interaction, and it hasn't been at the expense of doing or saying anything that popped into my head at any one moment. I don't have a scale that says how important being able to do that is. Thus, I'm figuring out how much a relationship can pump out in happiness if I work at it, sacrifice for it, and try not to see my previous rationals and "perfectly" rational. Acting on the outside is what will reflect on the inside, but your innate and selfish, arguably "true" nature, doesn't just get erased in lieu of your actions. Where am I going to balance?

I know I don't want headaches. I don't want to make her sad. I don't want to feel on the brink of saying something or doing something for the sake of some test or antagonism. If I can write, keep the writings from her, and practice I think this will go smoother and start to make more sense. As much as I want to say that I passed up fucking a girl that I've been trying to fuck for years, this information does not go over well for relationships. As much as I'd like to just get super pissed at something seemingly insignificant yet it cuts so deep, I need to tarry that anger to a context. I wish I didn't feel free. Maybe that's why I'm working on the relationship. If I can get a set of rules with a person that I've convinced myself to be enthralled with, then it takes off the burden that comes with the feelings of being free. If I can find reason enough that this would be better for me longer than my sexual philanthropy and unabashed character, then I don't suffer the bullshit of feeling marginally guilty by hooking up with someone, or waiting for actual years before she comes around to your pitch.

I'm also falling into the trap of thinking too far into the future. I'm already worried about what she'll think or feel when I escort some girl to my room as we walk past her. I'm already worried about how we might act during some business meeting. I'm taking for granted that she'll be less inclined to help or care if I end things in the wrong way. I don't like how she tells me she loves me and then says I don't have to say it. Of course I don't have to say it. If and when I feel it, I will/do say it. She loves me, but not in a way I can understand. And I love her, but not in a way she feels, necessarily likes, or understands fully either. It won't help to start making schedules and interactions that keep us around each other all the time. She won't want that after things are done. Especially if for whatever reason we don't make it until the summer. I had a feeling the schedule thing would fall through anyway. If only because we won't have enough things to keep a consistent block of things we simply have to get done.

It bothers me that I could "emptily" fuck this other girl and still want and appreciate what I have with Steev, and she would never in a million years agree or empathize with that. I need to be all to herself. I'm "special" although I'm not, neither is she, none of us are. Sex is just fun for me, not a sign of commitment or loyalty. I can commit to people with the promises I make, the the words I give to my friends. They can trust how I'll react to things, how I'll deduce a situation, and that I'll at some level always be acting in my self interest. I don't understand how that isn't enough. I feel like I give people more honest assessments of myself and heartfelt testaments to who I can be for them at a level that some people who've been together for decades don't have with each other. Yet that still isn't enough? All that tells me is that the flaw isn't with honesty, it isn't with my style or choices, it's with the other person. It just means that I don't want to play the game of catering for the sake of a title or I don't want or empathize with the feelings of a normal relationship.

I can't be wrong if I'm happy and the people I want to be happy are happy as well. I can't see the flaw in my reasoning if people keep coming back, aren't holding grudges, can and do talk to me without my probing or desperate attempt at getting back in contact with them. I appreciate the different ways I relate with everyone. I don't want to sacrifice that for one relationship. For one person that must be glorified beyond all reason to make any argument formulated around that idea seem even vaguely compelling and plausible. That is what causes my headaches. That is where the suffering takes place. It isn't me suffering being with one person who by any standard is amazing and good for me, it's sacrificing what I see as my relationships with other people. They all make me happy. They all compose a part of me that I like to express in some form or another, and they are all part of the framework I've built to understand and express. Steev isn't conducive to the whole, and that's why we'll end. It isn't her, it's everything about me, and that isn't meant to be self-defeating, an excuse, or cliche. That's the reality. At this current juncture in my life, I will want to fuck other people, I will want my seemingly endless time alone, I will want to construe my philosophy and words on unsuspecting people and situations, and I will be compelled to react against the situations that put me in opposition to that. And that's exactly what a relationship is. It's giving your finger to the world of pure selfish expression.

Relationships, friendships, and love I feel only work when both people understand that that is why they are in it. Despite all the people in the world and everything else you could be doing, your both choosing to enjoy how you relate to each other, and are dignifying it over everything else in those moments. Neither of you has to sacrifice aspects of your personality that you enjoy and see as fundamental to expressing who you are. Your both uplifted by each other, not picking away at yourselves "for the sake" of the other person. If you like to fuck, then fuck. If your good at talking, then talk to each other, if you can do both at the same time, more power to you. To me, the reality is, there is no intrinsic action or behavior that should glorify basic human interactions that everybody can engage in. There is no edict from heaven that says once you can stay up all night talking to someone, you should be in a relationship. The best blow job of your life may hate everything else you hold dear. It all is just actions, what makes them dignified is your pro-active choice about who they are going to be with. It is not your desperation to hold on to the integrity of the ideal laden platitudes about love and relationships. While I'm acting to keep a relationship and doing all I can do to visibly show this other person that I enjoy their time and appreciate what we have, I can't ignore the statement I see myself making to other people. I can't pretend like I didn't see that one girl's body language before and after she found out I had a girlfriend despite our previous conversation. I can't pretend I am not fantasizing about or had set into motion a plan for getting with someone that is now being trampled because I'm another "taken" guy. That is frustrating as hell and really pisses me off.

And now despite this, what does someone like me do? I go and make the game even more complicated. I try to use the relationship as an advantage for my later interaction with those girls. I use their built up thoughts and ideas about me to grow and swelter so they are that much more likely to submit in the future. I coyly play like I don't notice them looking at me. I try to remain friendly and nonchalant when their faces grow cold and down. I still don't know if that's being "honest" to Steev. When there's a list of things you can't tell someone because your in a relationship, given that they are about what it would be like if the relationship weren't in tact, I can't feel that bad about not telling her. This especially given how she's reacted in the past. It is being honest to my perverted self. It is being honest to my curiosity and want to fool around with them. I want it all. I felt like I had it all, except for the experience from or effort put towards a "normal relationship."

When I didn't have much of an identity beyond obnoxious asshole, that would explain why I fell so hard for Nikki. Here I had granted myself a new game of trying to "self express" through actions that would distract or fix her troubled world. I put up the edicts about her being gorgeous and worthy to get the reasoning out of the way, and then I go to town on mentally bereaving myself. Now that I've moved beyond that and developed a shit ton of more reasons to be anti-relationship, if not anti-love as well, I'm tearing myself up over the idea that I would drag myself back into a world that I've already figured out. A self-defeating game I've already beaten. A struggle that won't take place in the same way, but still smells of the past. My basic empathy and rules regarding friends will continue to weigh on me so heavily because they are well-reasoned and good things to live by. They are things that aren't necessarily in opposition to my other views, until they adopt a cloak of a relationship. So, the new game is resolving this? Making the relationship cohesive to the idea, at least for now, that it's spitting on or detracting from what I have with other people or how I express myself. I don't think that was a wise road to travel. I really think at this point that I've just been so bored I've openly adopted this drama and mess for the sake of something to write about. Well okay, not really, but close. I can't say I didn't see any of it coming, and I can't pretend like I don't believe there is a simple answer. I just want to make my friends happy, but only when they understand it's their responsibility first. And it shouldn't even have to remotely involve me.

Updated about 3 months ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

 You like this.

 Diana Woody at 11:45am January 3

It blows my mind you post this kind of anguish that involves other people publicly...
Love you.

 Nick P. at 3:24pm January 3

this is actually private with only you and my one friend allowed to see it.

 Diana Woody at 3:29pm January 3

OH. That explains a lot. Also, I feel privileged. And, you should try leaving Indiana...move to the east coast...people are so much awesomer out here... Example: in Indiana, I ask a girl before a threesome, are you sure you'll be alright with this in the morning. She reassures me. A week later she's bemoaning how she gave in to temptation and woe is her, she screwed up and I'm thinking, dammit, I PERSONALLY asked you to think it through because I KNEW you would do this. I've NEVER had that problem with anybody out here. Lots of people identify themselves as "loose" in their relationships (not their words, that's my best description for it) in the kind of way that you and I appreciate... There's so much world and variety of people outside of the midwest! Not that I hated the midwest, it's just definitely been different out here...

 Nick P. at 3:47pm January 3

See, I the worst thing about here is that at the beginning of our relationship she described wanting a "British style" relationship. What I took to mean as, and I'm paraphrasing her words, "You can fuck other people just as long as you know that your coming home to me" type situation. Given this delightful information, I didn't sleep with, but messed around with another girl towards the beginning of the relationship which resulted in a huge backlash about me being dishonest or trying to betray her. You can hopefully imagine my confusion. I wish I could convey that it's nothing about her that I necessarily dislike, but I really am just that bent on new experiences and don't regard sex as the be all end all denotation of feelings. I am intrigued by the East given your frequent endorsements. Although I'm not conveniently disposed to pick up and go quite yet. Also, I'm modestly hopeful that I could swing her around to three way things or letting me stray, but it isn't something I can push.

 Diana Woody at 3:59pm January 3

I think insecure women say, and possibly even think, they're alright with "british style" (I'll use that term) relationships, but in their minds, even though they've "given you the freedom" (which bothers me, since both people should kinda want it for it to work), they actually want you to shun all others as a sacrifice to prove your love for her. I've seen several women try to be open-relationship kind of girls and fail utterly because of pettiness, spite and jealousy. Which wouldn't be a big deal if they were just honest with themselves and admitted that they want a conventional monogamous relationship! Unless she does a lot of growing up (mentally) quickly, I doubt the relationship will get much better... She's practicing too much self-deception (is what it sounds like to me) to be able to be a part of a serious, mature form of relationship that's open. You have to really have it together to be in an openish relationship.

 Nick P. at 4:16pm January 3

I have confidence that I can at least go about my "method" as it were of discussion with her, and am actually willing to go through the potential drama if it doesn't work out. We've touched on things like this before even though I can say I think the main reason she won't like it will be because of her ideas about betrayal. One way or another I'm confident things will work out without regrettable consequences even though I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of her behavior.

 Diana Woody at 4:38pm January 3

as long as you're confident, I suppose... ;)

[169] Be Nice

Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 6:56am

I'm watching a debate about whether or not unfit parents should be prevented from bringing more children into the world while they are currently unable to take care of who they have. The remarks and discussion taking place is simply beyond me. In an effort to "respect" and "be within their rights" the simple, practical, and logical solution is swallowed up by people who gear up the applause with their prompt and stern ways of making comments and posing questions. But, as with everything, this speaks to something higher for me. It's too easy to talk about bad arguments muddled with confused reasoning and the like. I see a power struggle. The weirdest and most confusing thing about it though is that I'm not sure anybody talking about this even cares to wield the power of enacting any plan that might actually change something. Thus is the nature of discourse:

"O, that's a great point there Charley, let's put it in the box and put a star on it with all of Ringo Star's songs and children's letters to Santa."
"Thanks for acknowledging the point, but what about the bears!"
"Charley, the bears aren't people and don't even believe in the beer that's damaging these babies"
"Hey! I like beer, let's get a drink together and forget this conversation ever took place."

Scene

I feel like this push to get off track, stay cordial, and make the word honesty a compilation of everyone's personal definition is entirely unproductive and destroys "progress." Of course when I talk about progress I mean purely in quantitative terms. For example, last year say 1000 kids died from gun violence and this year only 10, call that "progress" if you will. Anyway, back to the pseudo-power struggle. You get the priest lady to talk about what should have been done in the past, coupled with the social worker who describes her misunderstanding of the argument that doesn't exist, with a nice layer of anecdotal sympathy story from brain-dead-baby adopted parent, and the beacon of Reason, who happens to be Dawkin's, is trampled and swept to the time-out corner. Who's "winning" in this situation? Who then gets the stamp that enacts these laws? Who's ears are these debates really falling on? All those dumb asses who make that comment "I am really glad this debate is taking place, I really feel like we should be having this discussion" need to kill themselves. Great Mr., you think this debate should take place, here's a cookie, thanks for your empty words. Why not say something like "Yes, I see a problem, here's whether I think the proposed solution would help, if not, here's my speculation on what might be better."

Whatever, there's more important things to think/rant about.

[69] Same Book, Still Going

Ok I'm about half way through this monster of a book and a few themes need to be reiterated. For one moment I'd like to state for the record that beside in anything other than a purely satiric nature, I've never told anyone they were going to go to hell. This I'm finding pretty fucking offensive as the caring and loving nature of Jesus' disciples cuts a little too deep when it comes from people who's heads are well traversed amid the depths of their ass. It doesn't so much bother me the statement in itself as much as the level of pure ignorance from which it comes. It is my opinion that nobody with even half the opportunities you've been given to be able to read this blog, has any excuse to not do actual research before they go and make such glaring statements.. This book is about 500 pages. That's 500 more pages I will be in front of my friends who subsequently still tell me to look around in wonder as "proof" for god's existence. I'm bringing an army to a boxing match and the boxer is using a pillow.

Well, onto the themes. One which I personally find the most fun is the utter ridiculousness of rationalizing a god with all the typical powers. You know, omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, omni-whatever else. If it was simple enough for people to  ridicule with such precision and tell-allness without modern day science, you'd think that would speak volumes to people who rely so heavily on those "arguments" that stem from vague memories asserted from authority, and not personal reasoning. The great thing that apologetics have learned to do when trying to acclimate the faith is to forgo agreeing upon definitions before they begin or take it a step farther and explain why the main issue that would cripple their view doesn't apply in the "context" (aka bullshit personal bias) that their reasoning needs. Countless times you see through history that it was first human progression, second the church who dragged its heals the entire way, then decided to get on board. Slavery, women's rights, witch hunts, animal cruelty, WWII, sooner or later it will be homosexuality and stem cells if we're lucky.  Every modern day should be another nail in the enormous coffin it's going to take to amass all the absurdity and harm this decrepit dogma has bestowed.

Continuing, Carl Sagan tells a lot about the witch hunts and all the people killed, on ZERO evidence, at the prospect of the conspirators to get their assets or money. This reminded me of the debate, in w/e vague sense you can call such a spectacle, between D'Souza  and Dennett. During the question and answer session one of the students asks Dinesh something referring to the atrocities Christianity has purported in the past to which D'Souza gave a telling and ignorant reply. He rants a bit about how Stalin killed thousands "in the name of atheism", which is enough for anyone who knows anything about the definition of atheism or Stalin to write off D'Souza,  then proceeds to say during the whole time the Salem witch trials took place only 11 people were killed. Now the idea that he would even resort to reducing murderous crimes done out of ignorance and injustice, not to mention kinda maybe suggested by the bible, to a simple number battle bothers me, I mean it was only tortured death. The icing on the cake is that he apparently glossed over the fact that witch hunts burned a few more than he would like to believe. By a few I mean several thousands, especially if they belonged to the women and children variety. The worst part of our modern day heroes and pioneers debating under these conditions is that, if your speaking to an audience with attention spans that barely understand crappy movies, of course if they have no knowledge in the subject before hand, they're going to lean with the guy who speaks with passion(desperate yelling) and word play("hey I'm the cool guy" god joke).

Anybody who feels I am beating this subject into the ground is right. I've been sick of feeling like I repeat myself with no adequate rebuttal from the people I actually care to hear from for a really long time now. I take solace in the fact that as far back as one could write about this stuff and not get killed, people have felt the same way but still had the underlying appreciation for their freedom to write it and an overall hope for the one day it will all be over. I'd like for these to be somewhat of a testament to my actual truth that I care about people's liberation of mind and by just sitting back and bitching to myself, I'm no better than the guy who says I'm going to burn in hell for not believe like him. If you do that by the way, fuck you. You're not worthy of much greater a response.

None of these people have seriously tried to embody the "atheist or agnostic" position. None. Not seriously, not "I have been one in the past" either. It's a boldface lie, which I'm learning is not a "sin" most Christians give two shits about disobeying. And I don't mean to even just haphazardly forgo your faith and play pretend, I mean to sit back and let the "I don't knows" really sink in. I mean for you to not say "o look an anti-faith book, commence scary music!" and run away. There is in no way shape or form it is just a mere choice for me to say I don't believe or don't know. It's just the fucking truth. My recourse didn't come from "god did it" so I looked for real proof and wah-lah I wasn't alone. Who thinks it was just easy for me to drop any hold that lifelong embedded superstition had on me? Who cared to ask in a manner that wasn't accusing me of never believing in the first place? Do you think it's a fun position to hold thinking your friends trapped by tradition are forcefully denying themselves the beauty of the real world, the power that mental stimulation and a reasoned outlook can give you? It's like I have the best invented drug ever made with zero negative side effects, but it's just a little too hard to understand and takes a little too much time pick up so let's all just gnaw on our red meat.

I don't think there is much left for humanity to try to finally work out than this quarrel between religion, science, morals, origins, and the self. I don't understand how a belief in a speculative, by definition impossible to realize, place of never ending worship and lobotomies, is enough to trump amazing facts about our world. What sick power does one feel when they can't wait for some of the greatest minds in history to burn in hell because they've shown another reason to get over the myths.  Their mind is unsettled ipso facto someone else is automatically wrong. It's so simply consoling it's just sick.

No single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood.