So when my mother read that last post of mine, boy did I hear about it... She's certainly passionate about this subject. In my information gathering I had already learned just about everything she stated in its defense, but she couldn't answer some of my particular critical questions:
1. Why the lack of ingredients labeled?
2. Why the specific duck ingredients if it's the imprinted vibration that's doing the healing?
3. Why have any sugar in the pills at all?
4. Wouldn't a larger dosage of the main ingredient allow for more potent healing? The imprinted vibrations would carry over in greater potency is the dosage were upped, would they not?
With every question I didn't hear a valid explanation to, I instead would hear another story of when homeopathics saved my brother's life from bee stings and fevers...
But if it was truly a sugar pill with an imprinted vibration of the active ingredient that saved him and not his own immune system, I feel as though this is no longer a talk about the pill being the saviour. This is a talk about faith and spiritual healing.
Like any beliefs, I don't want to bunk something that someone else believes in just because I don't think it's true. Maybe the pills' vibrations actually did work.
Maybe it was healing energy from my mom that did the healing rather than the pills.
Maybe my brother's immune system was better than she thought.
Maybe God was watching over him and decided it wasn't his time.
Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster slipped a noodle up his nose and pulled out the venom/virus.
Many things are possible, and I shouldn't be one to judge. I guess I'm not accustomed to the idea of taking a pill for something other than the physical ingredients in the pill, so if it seemed like I was attacking the idea of this medicine working, that wasn't exactly my intention. My intention was to bring into light the things that seemed deceptive.
Personally, I believe that we should all know what is contained within what we buy. I am an advocate that the GMO labeling i-522 bill should have passed, being that it would be a step in the right direction. But just like I believe the deception behind not labeling GMOs is wrong, I also believe that not containing all the ingredients on a pill bottle is wrong. This bottle contains 99.999etc% sugar. And they could at least write "extract of duck liver and heart" in a parenthetical. If the average person today can't even understand how to use a semicolon with English as their primary language, how can we expect them to know that much Latin?
(I'm pretty sure "healing vibrations" wasn't on that ingredients list either.)
Also, these things are being marketed as though it's a pill you take to get better, when in fact it is a method of spiritual healing; not so much a compound of physical ingredients, but rather a product made through a process of vibrations, and taking the pill melds the pill's vibrations with those of your own body. But putting it like that would make them far less money, I'm sure. They could at least sell some that are sugarless. Make them out of stevia or something... Don't they know their target audience?
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Oscillococcinum
So I took some of my mom's Oscillococcinum this morning to see if it might help calm down my coughing fits (I think I might have fractured a rib). It occurred to me after taking it that, to my memory, all round-white-pill homeopathics I have taken in my life have had the same sweet taste, so I looked at the ingredients. They were in Latin, for some reason:
"Anas barbariae hepatis et cordis extractum 200CK"
With Google Translate, that became:
"Barbary duck liver and heart extract 200CK"
So I had the question at that point... Why would duck liver/heart be the color white, and why the hell would it taste sweet? And what is this 200CK?
Well after a bit of research I found some answers. First of all, 200CK is apparently an indication of dilution. The C stands for Centesimal (a division into hundredths), and the K stands for Korsakov. Not Korsakoff syndrome, but rather the Korsakov method of making homeopathic remedies (Yes, his full name is Semen Nikolaevich Korsakov... Poor guy). Basically, his method was to use the same container for mixing the diluted extracts with water.
So now we know that this Oscillococcinum contains 200 of some division of barbary duck liver and heart extract mixed with water using the same tank for each mixture. I feel like if they just said it like this in plain English it would feel a lot less shady. But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Feeling as though I had more yet to discover, I researched Oscillococcinum itself, and found an interesting fact... Not only are the ingredients on the bottle printed in Latin, seemingly on purpose to prevent their knowledge, but not all of the ingredients are even printed on the bottles. Oscillococcinum contains 1x10-400 (ten to the -400th power) grams Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum as the "Active Ingredient," and the "Inactive Ingredients" are 0.85 grams sucrose and 0.15 grams lactose. So... Yeah, that explains why this duck liver/heart would taste sweet. I wonder if the sugar is organic?
So basically Oscillococcinum pills are made of 100% sugar with maybe a single molecule of what might be a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of being duck liver and heart extract instead of water. And no, I did not make that number up. That is 10 to the -400th power - the amount of the active ingredient in this product.
When Professor Hubert Farnsworth from Futurama replied to Amy Wong's suggestion of homeopathic medicine with the retort: "Or a big fat placebo! It's all the same crap!" I gave it a laugh and gave the medicine the benefit of the doubt... But finally looking at the science behind much of this stuff, I'm afraid I don't see any possible conclusion other than, yes, these are sugar pills... I certainly welcome somebody to prove me wrong, but I'm going to need some good explanations about how a duck's liver and heart could heal my ailments in the first place. Apart from curing my hunger, of course.
"Anas barbariae hepatis et cordis extractum 200CK"
With Google Translate, that became:
"Barbary duck liver and heart extract 200CK"
So I had the question at that point... Why would duck liver/heart be the color white, and why the hell would it taste sweet? And what is this 200CK?
Well after a bit of research I found some answers. First of all, 200CK is apparently an indication of dilution. The C stands for Centesimal (a division into hundredths), and the K stands for Korsakov. Not Korsakoff syndrome, but rather the Korsakov method of making homeopathic remedies (Yes, his full name is Semen Nikolaevich Korsakov... Poor guy). Basically, his method was to use the same container for mixing the diluted extracts with water.
So now we know that this Oscillococcinum contains 200 of some division of barbary duck liver and heart extract mixed with water using the same tank for each mixture. I feel like if they just said it like this in plain English it would feel a lot less shady. But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Feeling as though I had more yet to discover, I researched Oscillococcinum itself, and found an interesting fact... Not only are the ingredients on the bottle printed in Latin, seemingly on purpose to prevent their knowledge, but not all of the ingredients are even printed on the bottles. Oscillococcinum contains 1x10-400 (ten to the -400th power) grams Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum as the "Active Ingredient," and the "Inactive Ingredients" are 0.85 grams sucrose and 0.15 grams lactose. So... Yeah, that explains why this duck liver/heart would taste sweet. I wonder if the sugar is organic?
So basically Oscillococcinum pills are made of 100% sugar with maybe a single molecule of what might be a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of being duck liver and heart extract instead of water. And no, I did not make that number up. That is 10 to the -400th power - the amount of the active ingredient in this product.
When Professor Hubert Farnsworth from Futurama replied to Amy Wong's suggestion of homeopathic medicine with the retort: "Or a big fat placebo! It's all the same crap!" I gave it a laugh and gave the medicine the benefit of the doubt... But finally looking at the science behind much of this stuff, I'm afraid I don't see any possible conclusion other than, yes, these are sugar pills... I certainly welcome somebody to prove me wrong, but I'm going to need some good explanations about how a duck's liver and heart could heal my ailments in the first place. Apart from curing my hunger, of course.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Violence in Video Games
For many years now there have been arguments that video game violence desensitizes people from real life violence. Some studies even say that video games cause people to become violent themselves. Video games do not make people violent, nor do they cause people to believe that violence has no repercussions; video games merely show that poor sportsmanship, impatience, and a violent disposition can lead to violence.
Many studies seem to assume that violence in video games allows people to be violent without any repercussions. This is not true, because in order to add challenge (and fun) to any video game, it is necessary to have opposition – a way to lose. If a person attacks someone in real life, they are likely to be attacked right back. Video games work in the same way – you attack someone, they attack you right back. There are circumstances in real life where one may be, for some reason, unable to counter the opposition, and video games share those same conditional circumstances. But no matter what the circumstance, there is always a repercussion in some form or another, video game or no, for acts of violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series violent acts are treated in much the same way as in real life, resulting in the player being wanted by the police/military, and oftentimes the player gets killed trying to evade them. In the game Battlefield: 1942 the player is given arms and told to go out and fight in World War II. And not unlike the real war, the player is at constant risk of stepping on a landmine, being sniped, being bombed by a plane, etc. These games aren't showing the players that war and violence is okay, they're showing them just how devastating war and violence can really be.
When extremely involved in, or passionate about something, it is easy for people to overreact. When playing video games in competition with another player, or sometimes even against the computer, a player can become frustrated from a losing streak. This highly depends on the individual person, but sometimes players can become so frustrated at their losing streak that they throw the controller, or even hit the friend who was constantly beating them. That is not an example of the video game causing them to be violent; it is an example of poor sportsmanship and self control. Being that video games are a form of media created by people, they also act as a kind of self-expression for the developers, representing their thoughts and ideas. If one is arguing with somebody else and begins to feel frustrated by his or her ideas, one must hold back feelings of aggression, just as one must hold back feelings of aggression when playing a video game. Video games are designed for recreation and entertainment; if the game isn't fun anymore, one can simply stop playing it. Sports fans who are really passionate about the team they root for might react in a similar way when they see their team make a stupid move during the game. The ability to lose, admit defeat, and shake the hands of the opposing team is something supposedly taught at a young age. Unfortunately some people never grasped the concept of losing with dignity during their youth and instead of congratulating the opposing team they get angry and make accusations. Video games are not the only devices that cause frustrated losing reactions; this behaviour is found all over the place, and video games are merely a convenient medium to pin the blame on due to their popularity among the younger generation (Ferguson 1).
The argument has been made that young children shouldn’t play violent video games because it could desensitize them to violence. Depending on the age and development of the child, this could very well be true, but this is also why video games are given a rating, just like movies and television shows. Many young children are impressionable, and game developers know that, so they rate their games for certain age groups. But even within the age groups of the rating, the parents themselves must decide whether their child should play it or not. If parents find that their child is outside stomping on turtles like the Super Mario Brothers, that isn’t the fault of the game, since he clearly wasn't ready, it’s the fault of the parents for letting their child play the game and not teaching the child beforehand that stomping on turtles is wrong. The same argument can be made for the television shows children watch. Just as parents would watch an episode of a television show and judge for themselves if their child should watch it or not, parents should also play a level or two of a video game so they can accurately judge if their child should play it or not. Children are impressionable in their early developmental years, and therefore parents should be the judges of whether their child is ready or not for various media stimuli.
When making the argument that violent games cause violence, people seem to ignore the possibility that the violence could have happened despite the video game. Dr. Patrick Markey stated in an article of The Escapist, “Individuals are not ‘blank slates.’ One’s general disposition moderates the effect of violent media” (Chalk). If a man played the game Modern Warfare and then went out and shot someone, that doesn’t mean that the game made him do it. Taking an example of a single individual who actually shot someone and correlating his shooting with the video game he plays is inaccurate because it does not account for the thousands of other people who have played that game and gotten no urge to go on a real life killing spree. If this guy can actually go out and shoot someone just like that, maybe we should consider the possibility that he is mentally ill, or that he has a history of violence. If violence in video games were making people physically violent, imagine how many people would be currently under attack by the approximated 9 million currently active World of Warcraft players (Holisky). People play video games that they personally enjoy, so telling a number of people to sit down and play games that they do not enjoy can cause them irritation in itself, thereby contaminating the results of the test. The humanity element is a difficult thing to measure and cannot accurately be portrayed in a laboratory; when testing for a correlation between violent gaming and and real life violence, the mental characteristics of the gamers should be taken into account.
Some people might question why violent video games are made in the first place and why people play them. People who play violent video games often play them as a way of relieving stress. Let's say a man by the name of Greg had a bad day at work; his boss gave him a hard time. He might have thoughts about punching his boss, or even throwing his boss out the window. These mental images are normal; it's acting on them that makes them bad. So Greg comes home and attacks a punching bag for an hour to relieve his stress. You see how Greg can relieve his stress through acts of violence against an object designed for receiving acts of violence? What if Greg came home and played Street Fighter on his gaming console? He takes control of a virtual avatar and beats on another virtual avatar, thereby taking out his anger on a virtual character designed to be attacked. Video games allow people like Greg in the modern age to have a sense of control during hard times, and many games offer virtual realities where people can create lives for themselves that could never be achieved in reality (CACM Staff 10). Video games allow people to experience their “happy place” in a fully immersive environment and help people to cope with the hardships and stress of their daily lives.
The reactions people have to the video game world vary highly depending on the person, and society has been known to shun every technological step leading into a new era. Radio was looked down upon when it became popular, television was looked down upon as its popularity grew, and now video games and virtual reality are being used as a scapegoat in much the same way. Video games may be addicting, they may bring out bad sportsmanship in some people, and for developmental reasons it may be a bad idea to let your 6-year-old play Mortal Kombat, but because there are so many gamers out there who aren’t attacking people, it is inaccurate to say that video games are causing violence.
Many studies seem to assume that violence in video games allows people to be violent without any repercussions. This is not true, because in order to add challenge (and fun) to any video game, it is necessary to have opposition – a way to lose. If a person attacks someone in real life, they are likely to be attacked right back. Video games work in the same way – you attack someone, they attack you right back. There are circumstances in real life where one may be, for some reason, unable to counter the opposition, and video games share those same conditional circumstances. But no matter what the circumstance, there is always a repercussion in some form or another, video game or no, for acts of violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series violent acts are treated in much the same way as in real life, resulting in the player being wanted by the police/military, and oftentimes the player gets killed trying to evade them. In the game Battlefield: 1942 the player is given arms and told to go out and fight in World War II. And not unlike the real war, the player is at constant risk of stepping on a landmine, being sniped, being bombed by a plane, etc. These games aren't showing the players that war and violence is okay, they're showing them just how devastating war and violence can really be.
When extremely involved in, or passionate about something, it is easy for people to overreact. When playing video games in competition with another player, or sometimes even against the computer, a player can become frustrated from a losing streak. This highly depends on the individual person, but sometimes players can become so frustrated at their losing streak that they throw the controller, or even hit the friend who was constantly beating them. That is not an example of the video game causing them to be violent; it is an example of poor sportsmanship and self control. Being that video games are a form of media created by people, they also act as a kind of self-expression for the developers, representing their thoughts and ideas. If one is arguing with somebody else and begins to feel frustrated by his or her ideas, one must hold back feelings of aggression, just as one must hold back feelings of aggression when playing a video game. Video games are designed for recreation and entertainment; if the game isn't fun anymore, one can simply stop playing it. Sports fans who are really passionate about the team they root for might react in a similar way when they see their team make a stupid move during the game. The ability to lose, admit defeat, and shake the hands of the opposing team is something supposedly taught at a young age. Unfortunately some people never grasped the concept of losing with dignity during their youth and instead of congratulating the opposing team they get angry and make accusations. Video games are not the only devices that cause frustrated losing reactions; this behaviour is found all over the place, and video games are merely a convenient medium to pin the blame on due to their popularity among the younger generation (Ferguson 1).
The argument has been made that young children shouldn’t play violent video games because it could desensitize them to violence. Depending on the age and development of the child, this could very well be true, but this is also why video games are given a rating, just like movies and television shows. Many young children are impressionable, and game developers know that, so they rate their games for certain age groups. But even within the age groups of the rating, the parents themselves must decide whether their child should play it or not. If parents find that their child is outside stomping on turtles like the Super Mario Brothers, that isn’t the fault of the game, since he clearly wasn't ready, it’s the fault of the parents for letting their child play the game and not teaching the child beforehand that stomping on turtles is wrong. The same argument can be made for the television shows children watch. Just as parents would watch an episode of a television show and judge for themselves if their child should watch it or not, parents should also play a level or two of a video game so they can accurately judge if their child should play it or not. Children are impressionable in their early developmental years, and therefore parents should be the judges of whether their child is ready or not for various media stimuli.
When making the argument that violent games cause violence, people seem to ignore the possibility that the violence could have happened despite the video game. Dr. Patrick Markey stated in an article of The Escapist, “Individuals are not ‘blank slates.’ One’s general disposition moderates the effect of violent media” (Chalk). If a man played the game Modern Warfare and then went out and shot someone, that doesn’t mean that the game made him do it. Taking an example of a single individual who actually shot someone and correlating his shooting with the video game he plays is inaccurate because it does not account for the thousands of other people who have played that game and gotten no urge to go on a real life killing spree. If this guy can actually go out and shoot someone just like that, maybe we should consider the possibility that he is mentally ill, or that he has a history of violence. If violence in video games were making people physically violent, imagine how many people would be currently under attack by the approximated 9 million currently active World of Warcraft players (Holisky). People play video games that they personally enjoy, so telling a number of people to sit down and play games that they do not enjoy can cause them irritation in itself, thereby contaminating the results of the test. The humanity element is a difficult thing to measure and cannot accurately be portrayed in a laboratory; when testing for a correlation between violent gaming and and real life violence, the mental characteristics of the gamers should be taken into account.
Some people might question why violent video games are made in the first place and why people play them. People who play violent video games often play them as a way of relieving stress. Let's say a man by the name of Greg had a bad day at work; his boss gave him a hard time. He might have thoughts about punching his boss, or even throwing his boss out the window. These mental images are normal; it's acting on them that makes them bad. So Greg comes home and attacks a punching bag for an hour to relieve his stress. You see how Greg can relieve his stress through acts of violence against an object designed for receiving acts of violence? What if Greg came home and played Street Fighter on his gaming console? He takes control of a virtual avatar and beats on another virtual avatar, thereby taking out his anger on a virtual character designed to be attacked. Video games allow people like Greg in the modern age to have a sense of control during hard times, and many games offer virtual realities where people can create lives for themselves that could never be achieved in reality (CACM Staff 10). Video games allow people to experience their “happy place” in a fully immersive environment and help people to cope with the hardships and stress of their daily lives.
The reactions people have to the video game world vary highly depending on the person, and society has been known to shun every technological step leading into a new era. Radio was looked down upon when it became popular, television was looked down upon as its popularity grew, and now video games and virtual reality are being used as a scapegoat in much the same way. Video games may be addicting, they may bring out bad sportsmanship in some people, and for developmental reasons it may be a bad idea to let your 6-year-old play Mortal Kombat, but because there are so many gamers out there who aren’t attacking people, it is inaccurate to say that video games are causing violence.
CACM Staff. “War is No Game.” Communications of the ACM Mar. 2005: 10-10. Abstract. Print.
Chalk, Andy. “New Study: Most Teenagers are Unaffected by Violent Gaming.” Escapist 7 June 2010: n. pag. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101160-New-Study-Most-Teenagers-are-Unaffected-by-Violent-Gaming>.
Ferguson, Christopher J. “The School Shooting/Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (2008): 1-14. Abstract. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://168.156.198.98:2059/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b42ecbc6-5561-40b3-a578-ec064e402798%40sessionmgr14&vid=4&hid=111>.
Giumetti, Gary W., and Patrick M. Markey. “New Study Examines Anger, Aggression, Videogame Violence.” Journal of Research in Personality (2007): 1-10. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://www65.homepage.villanova.edu/patrick.markey/vg.pdf>.
Holisky, Adam. “World of Warcraft subscriber numbers dip 100,000 to 10.2 million.” WoW Insider 9 Feb. 2012: n. pag. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/02/09/world-of-warcraft-subscriber-numbers/>.Thursday, November 7, 2013
Buyer Beware! - HDMI Cables
If you find yourself shopping for HDMI cables, as long as it says "high speed" on the package, it is the same as any other 1080p capable HDMI cable.
Retailers are ripping people off by putting "3D capable" on the package and overcharging, when in fact all high speed HDMI cables are capable of 3D. I think some HDMI cables may be special due to supplying an ethernet connection, but the "HDMI v1.4" thing is actually misleading. HDMI v1.4 is referring to the version of the port, not the cable. The cables didn't change versions because they didn't need to - they are still capable of transferring massive amounts of video data. The port, however, needed to change the kind of video data that needed to be transferred through the cable.
Now this is not to say that some of the more expensive HDMI cables aren't superior. Some have gold plating, some are built out of cheaper or better materials, but ultimately they all do the same thing. They transfer video/audio data.
Retailers are ripping people off by putting "3D capable" on the package and overcharging, when in fact all high speed HDMI cables are capable of 3D. I think some HDMI cables may be special due to supplying an ethernet connection, but the "HDMI v1.4" thing is actually misleading. HDMI v1.4 is referring to the version of the port, not the cable. The cables didn't change versions because they didn't need to - they are still capable of transferring massive amounts of video data. The port, however, needed to change the kind of video data that needed to be transferred through the cable.
Now this is not to say that some of the more expensive HDMI cables aren't superior. Some have gold plating, some are built out of cheaper or better materials, but ultimately they all do the same thing. They transfer video/audio data.
Sources:
...and other misc Google searches.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Haters Gonna Hate
So it has come to my attention that Orson Scott Card, the author of the fantastic novel Ender's Game, is very much a closed-minded douchebag when it comes to respecting other people's equality with opinions and beliefs. It has also come to my attention that some are attempting to rally people together to boycott the new Ender's Game movie because of this.
"I don’t want a single penny of my money going to a vicious bigot like Card, even if the movie doesn't touch in any way on his homophobic views" they say.
(Example Link)
Now let me tell you why I think boycotting this movie is wrong.
I think boycotting Card's work is wrong because it follows this line of logic:
"His opinions are different from mine, so he should be punished."
Card is of the opinion that homosexuality should be illegal, one shouldn't be elected president if their religion disagrees with his, etc, etc... I don't need to read the rest.
Now here's his logic:
"Their opinions are different from mine, so they should be punished."
See some parallels happening here?
By boycotting the movie to get back at Card, you're actually boycotting many innocent people in the process! Why attack hundreds of people just because you hate one man? He's entitled to his opinion, just as we are. If you want to defend against his attacks on our opinions, that's fine. But do it in a way that's actually relevant.
He's an activist against gay rights. If you don't like that, then become an activist for gay rights and call out his bullshit! Don't pretend you're actually making a difference by boycotting a movie that other people are making just to prevent his making profit from it.
Orson Scott Card came up with a great series of novels based on ideas and creativity. Those novels are not attacking other people's opinions, nor will the movie based upon them attack other people's opinions. This man, no matter how backward his opinions and beliefs, has just as much a right to make money off of his creations as anyone else. And even though I seriously disagree with much of what he stands for, I commend his works of fiction, which clearly show that despite his archaic ignorance, he is capable of hard work, creativity, and brilliance.
I will see the Ender's Game movie, and I will love it. All of that being said, if there is a Hell, Orson Scott Card will likely end up there for being an intolerant religiously-blinded homophobic idiot.
Update after seeing the movie:
I saw the movie. It turned out to be rubbish... I am very disappointed...
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Wabbajack
Little boys shouldn't summon up the forces of eternal darkness, unless they have adult supervision, I know, I know. But on that sunny night on the 5th of First Seed, I didn't want an adult. I wanted Hermaeus Mora, the Daedra of knowledge, learning, gums, and varnishes. You see, I was told by a beautiful large-breasted man who lived under the library in my home town that the 5th of First Seed was Hermaeus Mora's night. And if I wanted the Oghma Infinium, the book of knowledge, I had to summon him.
Normally you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least a matching pillow case and sheet to invoke a prince of Oblivion. The Man Under the Library showed me how to do it myself. He told me to wait until the storm was at its height before shaving the cat. I've forgotten the rest of the ceremony. It doesn't matter.
Someone appeared who I thought was Hermaeus Mora. The only thing that made me somewhat suspicious was Hermaeus Mora, from what I read, was a big blobby multi-eyed clawed monstrosity, and this guy looked like a waistcoated banker. Also, he kept calling himself Sheogorath, not Hermaeus Mora. Still, I was so happy to have successfully summoned Hermaeus Mora, these inconsistencies did not bother me. He had me do some things that didn't make any sense (beyond the mortal scope, breadth, and ken I suppose), and then his servant happily gave me something he called the Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Maybe the Wabbajack is the book of knowledge. Maybe I'm smarter because I know cats can be bats can be rats can be hats can be gnats can be thats can be thises. And that doors can be boars can be snores can be floors can be roars can be spores can be yours can be mine. I must be smart, for the interconnective system is very clear to me. Then why, or wherefore do people keep calling me mad?
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Normally you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least a matching pillow case and sheet to invoke a prince of Oblivion. The Man Under the Library showed me how to do it myself. He told me to wait until the storm was at its height before shaving the cat. I've forgotten the rest of the ceremony. It doesn't matter.
Someone appeared who I thought was Hermaeus Mora. The only thing that made me somewhat suspicious was Hermaeus Mora, from what I read, was a big blobby multi-eyed clawed monstrosity, and this guy looked like a waistcoated banker. Also, he kept calling himself Sheogorath, not Hermaeus Mora. Still, I was so happy to have successfully summoned Hermaeus Mora, these inconsistencies did not bother me. He had me do some things that didn't make any sense (beyond the mortal scope, breadth, and ken I suppose), and then his servant happily gave me something he called the Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Maybe the Wabbajack is the book of knowledge. Maybe I'm smarter because I know cats can be bats can be rats can be hats can be gnats can be thats can be thises. And that doors can be boars can be snores can be floors can be roars can be spores can be yours can be mine. I must be smart, for the interconnective system is very clear to me. Then why, or wherefore do people keep calling me mad?
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Work
Even though I only have a part time job, I find myself working a lot. This has happened before, with my previous jobs, which were all part time as well.
Regardless of how many hours are given to me, if it's a work day, it all feels the same.
I have to wake up at a certain time that my circadian rhythm disagrees with,
I can't plan anything else on that day because work gets in the way,
I come home too wired to go to bed or too tired to do anything else.
Well now I appear to be faced with a whole new problem...
Regardless of how many hours are given to me, if it's a work day, it all feels the same.
I have to wake up at a certain time that my circadian rhythm disagrees with,
I can't plan anything else on that day because work gets in the way,
I come home too wired to go to bed or too tired to do anything else.
Well now I appear to be faced with a whole new problem...
I enjoy my work. I'm actually happier when I'm at work than when I'm at home. I still have trouble getting up in the morning, but I think that's just the lack of heating in my room, and my body's strange need for exuberant amounts of sleep.
I've always imagined work and play to be two completely different aspects of a person's life that needed to be balanced. But in my case these days, I find myself doing exactly what I do at work as the play when I get home.
It's confusing me.
I've always imagined work and play to be two completely different aspects of a person's life that needed to be balanced. But in my case these days, I find myself doing exactly what I do at work as the play when I get home.
It's confusing me.
I feel like I'm always at work, and I feel like it's taking over my life completely.
But on the other hand, I've always had a love for technology and I did these things anyway.
But on the other hand, I used to try to balance that with a social life.
But even in my social life I would talk about technology.
I know there's more to me than electronics. I don't just like to fix computers, I also like to fix other broken objects, and when people are feeling down I like to try to help. When I'm faced with a problem that needs fixing, I feel a drive to fix it, or at least make it make sense.
I need to understand everything - to make everything right.
But on the other hand, I've always had a love for technology and I did these things anyway.
But on the other hand, I used to try to balance that with a social life.
But even in my social life I would talk about technology.
I know there's more to me than electronics. I don't just like to fix computers, I also like to fix other broken objects, and when people are feeling down I like to try to help. When I'm faced with a problem that needs fixing, I feel a drive to fix it, or at least make it make sense.
I need to understand everything - to make everything right.
I've found that I enjoy my work. I enjoy helping people to fix their problems. I also generally enjoy being around good-natured and funny people, like my co-workers.
Having a kind of purpose helps me to overcome my depression, and being congratulated for a good job helps overcome my anxiety.
As the work day goes by and I grow more tired, I find myself thinking "just this much more time before my shift ends."
Having a kind of purpose helps me to overcome my depression, and being congratulated for a good job helps overcome my anxiety.
As the work day goes by and I grow more tired, I find myself thinking "just this much more time before my shift ends."
Why do I think that if I'm enjoying work more than home?
Whenever I go home and rest, I just slowly become depressed again, and my anxiety grows as I become uncertain of whether I'll make it out of bed the next morning. I find myself thinking of my practically non-existent love life, and the things that I wish were waiting for me when I got home.
I fear that the hard work I've been trying to put into changing my home life as I did with my work life is wearing me thin over time, and only having worked at this new job I enjoy for a short time, I don't want to lose it by having another mental relapse.
Whenever I go home and rest, I just slowly become depressed again, and my anxiety grows as I become uncertain of whether I'll make it out of bed the next morning. I find myself thinking of my practically non-existent love life, and the things that I wish were waiting for me when I got home.
I fear that the hard work I've been trying to put into changing my home life as I did with my work life is wearing me thin over time, and only having worked at this new job I enjoy for a short time, I don't want to lose it by having another mental relapse.
I wake up, still very tired as usual, no matter what time it is or how much sleep I got. I desperately want to stay in bed, but I know that if I had my way I would never leave it (I've stayed in bed for over 24 hours once before).
But once I get to work I start feeling better. Right after I start on a project, or greet my peers.
But come lunch break, if I'm alone, I go right back to feeling down until I get back to work.
But the more I work, and don't work on my personal life, the more anxiety I get from "working too much" even though this is only a part time job.
But once I get to work I start feeling better. Right after I start on a project, or greet my peers.
But come lunch break, if I'm alone, I go right back to feeling down until I get back to work.
But the more I work, and don't work on my personal life, the more anxiety I get from "working too much" even though this is only a part time job.
I need to wake up in about 4 hours for work...
Anyway, I guess my point is that I seem to have found a conundrum in my life. My work is my play, and so I get home and don't know what to do with myself. I can't shake this feeling that I would have no problems with this situation if I had a companion to come home to.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
.Net Framework 1.1 Problem Solved
So I encountered an annoying technical problem. I was logging onto Lord of the Rings Online on Zephyr (my desktop computer) earlier this week, and got an error message saying that some .tmp file crashed. I closed the error message and the launcher still started up just fine, so I just got into the game and figured I'd solve the problem later.
Upon getting into the game, for some reason the textures looked horrible. I went into the graphics options and no matter what setting I changed things to, nothing would change. Just a flash of the screen, and same pixelated appearance. Immediately I pointed the blame at that error message. There's no way I'm playing this game on my high-end awesome computer in anything less than HD textures, so I quit the game to solve the problem.
After turning the game launcher off and on again (the first step to many solutions), I recreated the error message. It appeared to point to Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1. I figured what the heck, that's a quick reinstall fix. I removed .Net Framework in preparation for reinstall it, but as I was reinstalling it it explained that there were known compatibility issues with the program. Wtf, Microsoft? You seriously can't make this easy by just making it compatible? .Net Framework 1.1 is still being used by many programs today. One of them being Lord of the Rings Online. A popular MMORPG with MILLIONS OF PLAYERS.
So .Net Framework seemed to install just fine, but its Service Pack 1 crashed upon install with the same error message I got from the lotro launcher. I think I found the source of the problem, don't you? I tried reinstalling it in compatibility mode for Windows XP. That did nothing, as expected.
After an hour of Googling around while reinstalling lotro as a (failed) experiment, I found many many useless forum posts and solutions that didn't work. Some of which involved deleting registry keys that did not appear to me to be the problem, so I didn't even try them. Incidentally, DO NOT delete registry keys without knowing what they do. My eventual solution worked fine without any alteration of the registry.
So now here we are today, about 4 days later, and I finally worked my way toward finding a solution again. I stumbled upon some Microsoft blog posts that helped me find the following solution.
The solution is to create an msi package via command prompt that will install a streamlined and fully compatible version of .Net Framework 1.1 based on your downloaded installation files. Here are step by step instructions on how to do this:
1. Download .Net Framework 1.1 and .Net Framework 1.1 SP1. Make sure .Net Framework 1.1 is named dotnetfx.exe, and .Net Framework 1.1 SP1 is named dotnetfxsp1.exe.
2. Open your start menu and type cmd. Right-click on cmd.exe and click run as administrator.
3. In the command prompt, type cd.. and press enter. Repeat that until you get to the root C:\> directory.
4. Type MD C:\DotNet and press enter, then type cd DotNet.
5. Now, outside of the command prompt, move the two .Net Framework installation files into the DotNet folder, located on the root of your C drive.
6. Now go back to the command prompt and type
dotnetfx.exe /c:"msiexec.exe /a netfx.msi TARGETDIR=C:\DotNet"
and press enter.
7. Click okay to install the .Net Framework 1.1 and proceed through the installation as normal. If anything prompts you about compatibility issues, just continue the installation.
8. Once the installation is finished, go back to the command prompt and type
dotnetfxsp1.exe /Xp:C:\DotNet\netfxsp.msp
and press enter.
9. Wait a few seconds, then type
msiexec.exe /a c:\DotNet\netfx.msi /p c:\DotNet\netfx.msp
and press enter. If anything pops up, just click "ok" and move on.
10. Close the command prompt and go to the DotNet folder, located on your C drive.
11. Open netfx.msi (the customized compatibility installation file that you just created) and it will install a streamlined version of .Net Framework 1.1 which includes the Service Pack 1.
12. Wait for the installation to finish, then you're done.
Another problem solved. That was such a pain in the butt to have to go through for something that should be compatible in the first place.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Ideas and Passion
I just got to thinking about how many great thoughts - ideas - are out there in the world today, and how few of them are being implemented past the thought stage. How many dreams people have, but they lack the drive, motivation, passion to execute any of their ideas. Due to lack of money, lack of time, there are a number of factors.
I think that if these ideas were all released on a whim and all people were completely free to make their dreams come to life without worrying about having the motivation to go through with it or having enough money, or not being accepted, the world would be an extremely chaotic place, but it would also be extremely interesting. There would be a whole new level of creativity that would spark new ideas in those who hadn't considered their own creativity before.
I believe that if you have an invention idea, a concept idea, something you want to accomplish - a new way of doing things - if it's within your capability to think it up, as long as it doesn't defy the laws of science, it's certainly possible for you to accomplish one way or another.
If you have the passion to push through adversity to make your idea(s) come to life, don't ever let that passion go. When combined with great thoughts, passion has an incredible power to change entire civilizations.
"Everything great that has ever happened to humanity, since the beginning, has begun as a single thought in someone's mind. And if any one of us is capable of such a great thought, then all of us have the same capacity, capability, because we are all the same." -Yanni
If you feel passionate about something, don't ignore it. Embrace it, cherish it, and nurture it. There's certainly a place for it somewhere in this world, and you were clearly meant to explore it. Find others with the same passion. You will not only become happier as a person for following your dreams and interests, but you will learn much about yourself, and the world, along the way.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Time
Focusing on the past leads to depression.
Focusing on the present leads to narcissism.
Focusing on the future leads to paranoia.
Not focusing on anything leads to stupidity/ignorance.
My conclusion:
It's probably best not to focus on things relating to time. You can think about them and make some preparations based on past experiences, of course, but go with the flow and don't let yourself get stuck thinking about time for too long or you might start focusing on it rather than the action you're planning.
Time is another of those human-generated concepts that causes stress in people's lives. However, though its creation causes much stress and has programmed our minds to not think in ways that disregard it, it is extremely useful for co-operative coordination.
While at work one can find that focusing on the work at hand rather than thinking about how much time they've been at work makes them happier. People say that time flies when you're having fun. Einstein says that time is relative. I say that time is an imaginary device, and its only purpose should be to coordinate teamwork and fun. It should never be used to pressure another person to work faster, as that encourages sloppy work and creates mistakes from their focusing more on how long it's taking them to get the job done. It should not be used to judge anyone's paycheck, as a person should be paid based on the quality of their work, not the amount of time spent on it.
I think something's out of whack, because as people expect things done faster and faster, we lose more and more patience. We also lose appreciation for true craftsmanship, and fewer people are taking the time to do decent work.
As one person does great work and another person slacks off, they are both paid the same due to their hours at work. The slacker might get fired, but that just means the other worker is expected to do both jobs due to the company not paying to hire another slacker. As this happens more and more often, more workers are expected to do more people's jobs within the same time limit.
Remove the concept of time from this entire situation, with the exception of using it as a method of telling people when they should arrive at work and, depending on the type of job, when they should go home. See what happens.
Unfortunately because of the way the concept of time has been burned into our brains, removing time from society in the manner mentioned above would cause chaos and lots of work not getting done. Without time as a motivator, people would feel to free to slack off with a lot of their work.
However, without time as a motivator, we would also see what these people truly want to do. As they slack off, we get to see what they do with their spare time. Without time as a motivator on the job, using it only as a method of getting people to be in the same place at the same time, and if they were paid based on the quality of work, maybe we would see more people in jobs where they find themselves happier. The ability to choose the job by the work rather than the money, being free to take the time to express themselves through their work.
So I'm having trouble concentrating on what I'm typing because of this loud and kind of obnoxious accordion playing going on in this room. So I'll just leave the profound thoughts at that and hope they make sense. In short, I don't like the way time is being used in society, and I don't like how it's making the world impatient. As people become impatient, they become frustrated. Frustration causes anger.
That Yoda quote comes to mind: "fear (of not finishing work on time) leads to hate (of your boss/company), hate leads to pain (from stress or working too fast), pain leads to suffering (loss of job or health issues from work)."
Anyway, these are just thoughts triggered by the first four lines of this post. I hope they were thought-provoking.
Then again, people say ignorance is bliss... Maybe line four isn't such a bad idea in most people's minds. Maybe that's why it seems like so many people are ignorant idiots.
Focusing on the present leads to narcissism.
Focusing on the future leads to paranoia.
Not focusing on anything leads to stupidity/ignorance.
My conclusion:
It's probably best not to focus on things relating to time. You can think about them and make some preparations based on past experiences, of course, but go with the flow and don't let yourself get stuck thinking about time for too long or you might start focusing on it rather than the action you're planning.
Time is another of those human-generated concepts that causes stress in people's lives. However, though its creation causes much stress and has programmed our minds to not think in ways that disregard it, it is extremely useful for co-operative coordination.
While at work one can find that focusing on the work at hand rather than thinking about how much time they've been at work makes them happier. People say that time flies when you're having fun. Einstein says that time is relative. I say that time is an imaginary device, and its only purpose should be to coordinate teamwork and fun. It should never be used to pressure another person to work faster, as that encourages sloppy work and creates mistakes from their focusing more on how long it's taking them to get the job done. It should not be used to judge anyone's paycheck, as a person should be paid based on the quality of their work, not the amount of time spent on it.
I think something's out of whack, because as people expect things done faster and faster, we lose more and more patience. We also lose appreciation for true craftsmanship, and fewer people are taking the time to do decent work.
As one person does great work and another person slacks off, they are both paid the same due to their hours at work. The slacker might get fired, but that just means the other worker is expected to do both jobs due to the company not paying to hire another slacker. As this happens more and more often, more workers are expected to do more people's jobs within the same time limit.
Remove the concept of time from this entire situation, with the exception of using it as a method of telling people when they should arrive at work and, depending on the type of job, when they should go home. See what happens.
Unfortunately because of the way the concept of time has been burned into our brains, removing time from society in the manner mentioned above would cause chaos and lots of work not getting done. Without time as a motivator, people would feel to free to slack off with a lot of their work.
However, without time as a motivator, we would also see what these people truly want to do. As they slack off, we get to see what they do with their spare time. Without time as a motivator on the job, using it only as a method of getting people to be in the same place at the same time, and if they were paid based on the quality of work, maybe we would see more people in jobs where they find themselves happier. The ability to choose the job by the work rather than the money, being free to take the time to express themselves through their work.
So I'm having trouble concentrating on what I'm typing because of this loud and kind of obnoxious accordion playing going on in this room. So I'll just leave the profound thoughts at that and hope they make sense. In short, I don't like the way time is being used in society, and I don't like how it's making the world impatient. As people become impatient, they become frustrated. Frustration causes anger.
That Yoda quote comes to mind: "fear (of not finishing work on time) leads to hate (of your boss/company), hate leads to pain (from stress or working too fast), pain leads to suffering (loss of job or health issues from work)."
Anyway, these are just thoughts triggered by the first four lines of this post. I hope they were thought-provoking.
Then again, people say ignorance is bliss... Maybe line four isn't such a bad idea in most people's minds. Maybe that's why it seems like so many people are ignorant idiots.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Labels
Before I go on explaining this, I want to make sure you all understand that much of this is not based on actual fact - it is merely speculation and thoughts/ideas from my own mind. That being said, I will talk about it as though it is fact, because in my mind this is what I've come to know and regard as fact. But I like to keep an open mind, so some of these "facts" are subject to change.
I believe that putting labels on things encourages the mind to see the labeled things in a certain way, and makes it difficult to see past the label. When someone cannot see past the label, they see what the label implies and nothing more.
The mind learns in a funny way. We learn in concepts, and those concepts give birth to new pieces of knowledge. It's like a web, where at the very center are the most basic concepts we learned at the youngest points of our lives. By default we compare newly learned concepts and experiences with previously learned ones that are similar because comparing them makes it easier to learn and remember. You aren't really learning something entirely new if you can compare it to something you already know. It's like starting a progress bar that's already at 46%.
That being said, slapping a label on something is similar to this method of learning we have. If we don't totally understand something, we label it and categorize it to make it more familiar. If we discover a new species on Earth with feathers that lays eggs, we compare it to the other species. Obviously if it lays eggs like a chicken, it must be a bird, right?
This works all well and good for many things, but there are some things that should not be given labels. I believe that the label "corporation" can be a bad one, for example. "Corporation" implies a singular object or being, and the very word itself feels mechanical or non-human. The reality is that "corporations" are people who work for a "group" or a "company."
But here we encounter more labels. "Group" and "company" are two labels that can mean the same thing, but also have different sounding meanings. A "group" sounds like there are a number of human beings working toward a cause of some kind, whereas a "company," despite is earlier root meanings of being basically the same as a "group," sounds like a singular entity again. A smaller company is often referred to as a "business." But I think I digress.
Corporations being referred to, and treated as a singular being leads the mind to categorize it in the wrong place. Rather than comprehending that the corporation is made up of hundred or thousands of people who work for a living, paying bills, raising families, each with their own personalities, problems, abilities, and set of friends, we instead identify that the corporation is a single, non-human life form.
When something with the company name branded on it doesn't work effectively, then the company is to blame, right? Is that to say that every single one of the thousands of people working for that corporation did something wrong? When somebody files a law suit against a corporation, are they thinking about taking the money from the corporation, or are they thinking about taking money from the thousands of people who work there?
The people in power who make decisions in these corporations should also be considered. When they make big decisions, are they making those decisions thinking of how it will affect the corporation as a being, or are they making those decisions considering how it will affect the thousands of people working for them?
We go to a chain restaurant. Subway, for example. Let's say you've never been to a Subway. You're on your way to work and order a sandwich for lunch. You find out at lunchtime that the sandwich you got was sub-par (no pun intended). There wasn't enough meat on it, or not enough olives, or something. Now do you blame the company and say that Subway makes bad sandwiches, or do you blame the server?
It's your first time going, so I bet you blamed the company without even considering that maybe different people behind the counter means different quality sandwiches. All of the people making those sandwiches are human beings, just like the rest of us, with personal backstories just as detailed as ours. It just so happens that this particular person was having a bad day, or just got yelled at by his/her boss for giving the previous person too much meat on their sandwich. Or maybe they were new to the job and you didn't realize it.
The Subway you walked into was given a label: "Subway." And that label made your mind run a comparison check with the other similar concepts you know. I don't know how your mind works, but mine would go like this:
Subway = brand name.
Brand name = company/corporation.
Company/corporation = non-human entity or small group of rich people.
Now because there wasn't enough meat and/or olives on that sandwich, (if I didn't know to look past the label) I would immediately think that the corporate fatcats were trying to put more money in their pockets by cutting back on the most expensive part of the sandwich, rather than consider that maybe the server was lazy or having a bad day.
Before I move on to the next part, I would like to add that, in my experience, places like Subway do vary greatly in quality based on which branch you visit. I have had awesome servers in one town who would give me extra at no charge, and crappy servers in another town who think when you ask for pickles/olives it means you only want 3 or 4 of them on the entire sandwich. And I was an equally polite and friendly customer to all of them.
So there's one example of how labeling something can be destructive. By sticking to the concept that a label means one thing, you could be making yourself blind to the fact that in reality it is actually something else.
By labeling a person as "gay," you are limiting your comprehension to only what you grew up understanding from that label. For example: If your parents thought being gay was a bad thing, you could grow up associating that particular label with the same negativity. Though that example might not even need a label to be true.
We need to understand or explain things that we aren't familiar with in order to feel comfortable with them, because we're uncomfortable with the unknown. But in some cases, it really is best to simply let something go. Let it remain unknown. Come up with your own brand new concept to explain it in your own head, without the outside interference. Add a new node to the center of your web.
The following is the thought that triggered this rant:
When people ask me about my sexual preference or gender, I don't like to answer with labels like boy, girl, transsexual, transgender, transvestite, straight, gay, bi, or whatever. I just am. I am whatever I am. I be how I feel most comfortable, and slapping a label on it just make things more complicated because it makes me feel like whatever I am has to conform to the available labels. I am me.
Life is less complicated when you just let yourself be who you are. It's learning to stop being someone else that's the hard part.
If you read this all the way through, I thank you for indulging me in my thoughts. It turned out much longer than I intended, and I didn't proof read it to condense its size.
I believe that putting labels on things encourages the mind to see the labeled things in a certain way, and makes it difficult to see past the label. When someone cannot see past the label, they see what the label implies and nothing more.
The mind learns in a funny way. We learn in concepts, and those concepts give birth to new pieces of knowledge. It's like a web, where at the very center are the most basic concepts we learned at the youngest points of our lives. By default we compare newly learned concepts and experiences with previously learned ones that are similar because comparing them makes it easier to learn and remember. You aren't really learning something entirely new if you can compare it to something you already know. It's like starting a progress bar that's already at 46%.
That being said, slapping a label on something is similar to this method of learning we have. If we don't totally understand something, we label it and categorize it to make it more familiar. If we discover a new species on Earth with feathers that lays eggs, we compare it to the other species. Obviously if it lays eggs like a chicken, it must be a bird, right?
This works all well and good for many things, but there are some things that should not be given labels. I believe that the label "corporation" can be a bad one, for example. "Corporation" implies a singular object or being, and the very word itself feels mechanical or non-human. The reality is that "corporations" are people who work for a "group" or a "company."
But here we encounter more labels. "Group" and "company" are two labels that can mean the same thing, but also have different sounding meanings. A "group" sounds like there are a number of human beings working toward a cause of some kind, whereas a "company," despite is earlier root meanings of being basically the same as a "group," sounds like a singular entity again. A smaller company is often referred to as a "business." But I think I digress.
Corporations being referred to, and treated as a singular being leads the mind to categorize it in the wrong place. Rather than comprehending that the corporation is made up of hundred or thousands of people who work for a living, paying bills, raising families, each with their own personalities, problems, abilities, and set of friends, we instead identify that the corporation is a single, non-human life form.
When something with the company name branded on it doesn't work effectively, then the company is to blame, right? Is that to say that every single one of the thousands of people working for that corporation did something wrong? When somebody files a law suit against a corporation, are they thinking about taking the money from the corporation, or are they thinking about taking money from the thousands of people who work there?
The people in power who make decisions in these corporations should also be considered. When they make big decisions, are they making those decisions thinking of how it will affect the corporation as a being, or are they making those decisions considering how it will affect the thousands of people working for them?
We go to a chain restaurant. Subway, for example. Let's say you've never been to a Subway. You're on your way to work and order a sandwich for lunch. You find out at lunchtime that the sandwich you got was sub-par (no pun intended). There wasn't enough meat on it, or not enough olives, or something. Now do you blame the company and say that Subway makes bad sandwiches, or do you blame the server?
It's your first time going, so I bet you blamed the company without even considering that maybe different people behind the counter means different quality sandwiches. All of the people making those sandwiches are human beings, just like the rest of us, with personal backstories just as detailed as ours. It just so happens that this particular person was having a bad day, or just got yelled at by his/her boss for giving the previous person too much meat on their sandwich. Or maybe they were new to the job and you didn't realize it.
The Subway you walked into was given a label: "Subway." And that label made your mind run a comparison check with the other similar concepts you know. I don't know how your mind works, but mine would go like this:
Subway = brand name.
Brand name = company/corporation.
Company/corporation = non-human entity or small group of rich people.
Now because there wasn't enough meat and/or olives on that sandwich, (if I didn't know to look past the label) I would immediately think that the corporate fatcats were trying to put more money in their pockets by cutting back on the most expensive part of the sandwich, rather than consider that maybe the server was lazy or having a bad day.
Before I move on to the next part, I would like to add that, in my experience, places like Subway do vary greatly in quality based on which branch you visit. I have had awesome servers in one town who would give me extra at no charge, and crappy servers in another town who think when you ask for pickles/olives it means you only want 3 or 4 of them on the entire sandwich. And I was an equally polite and friendly customer to all of them.
So there's one example of how labeling something can be destructive. By sticking to the concept that a label means one thing, you could be making yourself blind to the fact that in reality it is actually something else.
By labeling a person as "gay," you are limiting your comprehension to only what you grew up understanding from that label. For example: If your parents thought being gay was a bad thing, you could grow up associating that particular label with the same negativity. Though that example might not even need a label to be true.
We need to understand or explain things that we aren't familiar with in order to feel comfortable with them, because we're uncomfortable with the unknown. But in some cases, it really is best to simply let something go. Let it remain unknown. Come up with your own brand new concept to explain it in your own head, without the outside interference. Add a new node to the center of your web.
The following is the thought that triggered this rant:
When people ask me about my sexual preference or gender, I don't like to answer with labels like boy, girl, transsexual, transgender, transvestite, straight, gay, bi, or whatever. I just am. I am whatever I am. I be how I feel most comfortable, and slapping a label on it just make things more complicated because it makes me feel like whatever I am has to conform to the available labels. I am me.
Life is less complicated when you just let yourself be who you are. It's learning to stop being someone else that's the hard part.
If you read this all the way through, I thank you for indulging me in my thoughts. It turned out much longer than I intended, and I didn't proof read it to condense its size.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Beating Depressive Thoughts. In Poem!
Emptiness fills my head.
It's almost like I'm dead.
I lay here hours,
trying to sleep,
but all I can do
is lie here in a heap.
Thinking so hard about nothing at all.
Makes it hard to convey a message.
I'm surprised that any of this rhymes at all,
I'm just bored,
Cannot think,
Cannot form proper words,
Cannot work,
Cannot move,
Can't stop using that word.
Everything seems so much harder right now.
The world starts feeling so negative.
My realization of that makes me think
What would happen if I turned it positive?
I've accomplished so much;
I have many skills.
I have a warm house
To prevent outside chills.
I have all my family,
I have some close friends.
All of them love me
Through the odds and the ends.
I live in the woods
Where I feel most at home.
Fresh air all around me,
Wherever I roam.
My life's pretty good
When I put it like that.
I can think again.
Funny.
How about that?
I Can't Sleep
To sleep or not to sleep... That is the question... Whether 'tis healthier for the mind to suffer the penalties of insufficient sleep, or to take pills against insomnia, and by opposing, end it?
Ah, but what light through yonder window breaks? It is the sun, out to stay the hand of the moon from granting me rest? Arise Sun, and stimulate me, who is already sick and pale without sleep, that I might remain conscious through the day and end this chain of weariness.
But wait, star, hide your fire! Let not light hinder mine rest; thou shalt not stay the hand of the moon's desire! If chance may have me sleep, why, chance would not have me remain asleep?
To wake, to sleep no more. To wake... To sleep... To sleep, perchance to dream? Aye, there's the rub, for what thoughts may come once I have fallen to unconsciousness must give me pause... But if by a sleep I may end this weariness? 'Tis an action devoutly to be wish'd.
Ah, but what light through yonder window breaks? It is the sun, out to stay the hand of the moon from granting me rest? Arise Sun, and stimulate me, who is already sick and pale without sleep, that I might remain conscious through the day and end this chain of weariness.
But wait, star, hide your fire! Let not light hinder mine rest; thou shalt not stay the hand of the moon's desire! If chance may have me sleep, why, chance would not have me remain asleep?
To wake, to sleep no more. To wake... To sleep... To sleep, perchance to dream? Aye, there's the rub, for what thoughts may come once I have fallen to unconsciousness must give me pause... But if by a sleep I may end this weariness? 'Tis an action devoutly to be wish'd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)