Posting More
From now on, I'm posting more. I make a big deal out of what I post, but it doesn't need to be perfect. It doesn't have to be ground breaking, or a work of art. Two things have impressed this upon me again.
Also, no one is going to check up on this blog that often, get ready for this mind blower.. if I don't post more!
So that's what I am doing now. So to everyone who has been encouraging, I appreciate it. I try to read everyone's blog, too, but I slip sometimes. I end up catching up, though.
On that note, there are also some blogs I have to avoid like the plague. There are people out there that just piss me off too much. When I get pissed off, I usually get sucked in. Why? Because I want to fix things. In order to fix things, I try to understand. In order to understand, well, it involves A LOT of reading.
I guess my problem is I try to find redeeming qualities in everyone. Don't let the cynicism and grumpiness fool you, I'm actually fairly 'positive'. I find it sad when someone is so fucking delusional and blind. Not that I'm being judgmental of people's lives. We all make mistakes, and I have no expectations that everyone, or everything needs to be perfect.
I just want people to not get lost in the irrational and illusory. This usually comes down to politics and religion. It's not that I want people to see my side of things, and believe what I believe. I think it takes all sorts to make the world go 'round. But there are a lot of extreme, misguided, walking stereotypes out there with a myopic world view. People whose personal development is fairly stunted. They seem to meet the frustration and uncertainty of life by finding a simplistic set of beliefs, and forcing reality to fit it, no matter the cost.
Any political or religious (or atheist) view point can fall victim to this. It is really beyond that, though. It is a how, not a what. It is an approach to ideas, life and people. Sometimes there is a specific focal point, like a political organization, but it can also be something much more general.
It's like they are walking through life with their eyes and ears shut most of the time, at least to the things they don't want to see or hear. In a way, it may feel safer and more stable, but you miss a whole lot out there, (namely, reality). It also seems like they spread the fog around them to others, like a virus, a means to justify their belief system.
They are the kind of people who can believe 2 + 2 = 5, and not blink an eye or doubt that it is a fact. Their world does not have to be rational, just safe, especially from doubt. Yet they wipe their mind of this compromise, claim themselves righteous, and mock others as irrational.
Voltaire once said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." I would agree, but there are many that do not. They seek the shelter of certainty, for one or many things. Surrounded, and only listening to those that agree with them, they become absurdities.
Maybe I'm not explaining it perfectly, but I'm not sure I could. I'm not one for labels. They are rarely fitting, often misused, and usually twisted and co-opted, (many times by the type of person I am talking about). A name has power; it offers a mark to aim a weapon at. The only thing I can add would be: If the were in the "Matrix," and were offered the choice, they would take the blue pill.
I'm also trying to be a little vague, because this topic was triggered in my mind by a visit to another blog. I'm not here to start a blog war, or debate with the deaf. Because in the end, who is more a fool: the fool, or the one who chooses to argue with the fool?
A few people on Chris' blog critiqued a recent post of his. Not due to their opinions of his behavior or beliefs, but because of his writing style and content. The content was merely about his time growing up, being stuck between being a British and an American kid, (well.. and cricket). They thought it was boring. And as far as writing style went, the post was a lot better than most blogs out there.
So what would make people post, in my opinion, these nit picky comments? They have high expectations of Chris' writing. While I still think these expectations are unreasonable and silly, they did get me thinking, "Does anyone even have any expectations of me?" Hell, is anyone even reading this, except for a few blog buddies? So why should I be so anal retentive about posting?
The second thing was a post on Jay's blog. I hadn't read his blog in a while, and decided to catch up, (not exactly there yet). I thought he made a nice complement of me, (I think it was meant as a complement), that it was unfortunate that I post so infrequently. This made me remember a few other people saying similar things. This gave me encouragement. It's not that I need people revering my writing, or frequenting it everyday, to make it worth while to post. I just need a feeling that someone is listening, and appreciating it in whatever way they do. this has existed, but I haven't realized it.Also, no one is going to check up on this blog that often, get ready for this mind blower.. if I don't post more!
So that's what I am doing now. So to everyone who has been encouraging, I appreciate it. I try to read everyone's blog, too, but I slip sometimes. I end up catching up, though.
On that note, there are also some blogs I have to avoid like the plague. There are people out there that just piss me off too much. When I get pissed off, I usually get sucked in. Why? Because I want to fix things. In order to fix things, I try to understand. In order to understand, well, it involves A LOT of reading.
I guess my problem is I try to find redeeming qualities in everyone. Don't let the cynicism and grumpiness fool you, I'm actually fairly 'positive'. I find it sad when someone is so fucking delusional and blind. Not that I'm being judgmental of people's lives. We all make mistakes, and I have no expectations that everyone, or everything needs to be perfect.
I just want people to not get lost in the irrational and illusory. This usually comes down to politics and religion. It's not that I want people to see my side of things, and believe what I believe. I think it takes all sorts to make the world go 'round. But there are a lot of extreme, misguided, walking stereotypes out there with a myopic world view. People whose personal development is fairly stunted. They seem to meet the frustration and uncertainty of life by finding a simplistic set of beliefs, and forcing reality to fit it, no matter the cost.
Any political or religious (or atheist) view point can fall victim to this. It is really beyond that, though. It is a how, not a what. It is an approach to ideas, life and people. Sometimes there is a specific focal point, like a political organization, but it can also be something much more general.
It's like they are walking through life with their eyes and ears shut most of the time, at least to the things they don't want to see or hear. In a way, it may feel safer and more stable, but you miss a whole lot out there, (namely, reality). It also seems like they spread the fog around them to others, like a virus, a means to justify their belief system.
They are the kind of people who can believe 2 + 2 = 5, and not blink an eye or doubt that it is a fact. Their world does not have to be rational, just safe, especially from doubt. Yet they wipe their mind of this compromise, claim themselves righteous, and mock others as irrational.
Voltaire once said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." I would agree, but there are many that do not. They seek the shelter of certainty, for one or many things. Surrounded, and only listening to those that agree with them, they become absurdities.
Maybe I'm not explaining it perfectly, but I'm not sure I could. I'm not one for labels. They are rarely fitting, often misused, and usually twisted and co-opted, (many times by the type of person I am talking about). A name has power; it offers a mark to aim a weapon at. The only thing I can add would be: If the were in the "Matrix," and were offered the choice, they would take the blue pill.
I'm also trying to be a little vague, because this topic was triggered in my mind by a visit to another blog. I'm not here to start a blog war, or debate with the deaf. Because in the end, who is more a fool: the fool, or the one who chooses to argue with the fool?
posted by Buddha Bubba at 10:54 AM
5 Comments:
I check in three times a day just to see if there's more scat from...Bubbha.
Comment two, more inane than comment one:
Compliment? You thought that was a compliment? It was- but does it really only take the two words "unfortunately infrequently" to compliment you?
Or was it my reference to you calling the cops?
Anyway I do like reading what you write- although by the reverence to Voltaire and fancy words like "myopic" I'm feeling overwhelmed. If you pull too much elitest highbrow crap sending me to the dictionary every third word I'll have to spend more time reading The Chuckster instead.
Jay
Yes, it takes little to compliment me effectively. Frankly, I can't handle too much of a compliment before I start feeling fraudulent, (for whatever reason).
I don't mention Voltaire to sound "intellectual", it's just that he has some fairly good quotes. If I didn't quote him, I would just be plagerizing him.
And I hope my word choice doesn't come off as pretentious, though I know you were joking, (I think). Just trying to use the best word for the situation.
Well I just think it's pretty damn short-sighted to limit your potential audience by using fancy words like myopic.
Dewi, I would normally say a blog war MIGHT be fun, (in a doing-your-taxes-on-Adderall kind of way). However, there are a couple of reasons why it wouldn't be prudent in this situation. Can't really explain, to do so would probably reveal too much information, and start the blog war.
Post a Comment
<< Home