Perception is the feeling of knowing derived from individual interpretation of an environment, situation, or idea. Knowing is the feeling of truth and surety that comes from perceiving things in a particular way and interpreting them to be absolute certainties. Perception is an individual characteristic: each person's perception is completely different. Therefore perception cannot be influenced by other individuals, as this adds new perceptions to the original, bringing the perceiver one step closer to knowing. Knowing is understanding or acceptance of a truth that has been studied and passed around through the world, so that each person has added his or her perception to it and it has become closer to an actual truth. Ordinary people are given knowledge that has been adapted from other peoples' perceptions: the ideas of scientists, politicians, and people who tend to generate information is given to us through the media and through other people. We take these ideas, formerly the perceptions of one person, and make them our own knowing.
Take Wikipedia as an example. It's the perfect case study for the differences between perception and knowing: it's the information collection that some describe as the flawed babblings of every plebe with a PC and others call the brilliantly organized and administrated compilation of the best of humanity's knowledge. Those who dismiss Wikipedia as biased ignore the fact that opinions are not allowed without proper documentation, and original research is forbidden on the grounds that it allows the reporter to add his own spin to the facts. It's true that anyone can change an article, but for every person who does there will be several to make sure he follows the rules. Alternatively, those who hold the site up as the ultimate compilation of the collective consciousness have forgotten that even the administrators with the best of intentions can add their biases to the mix. All the information found on Wikipedia originated as the perception of individuals and has been added to and modified over the course of its lifetime to be a source of knowledge for many. Many interpretations have come together and been transformed into truth.
Perception and knowing are often causes and effects of one another: I percieve that the sun rises every morning, therefore I know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. This perception has been confirmed not only by every living human, but by science as well, placing it safely in the category of knowledge. However, knowing often comes without perception, and perception does not always guarantee knowing. For those with a tendency to take facts given by authority figures as truth, perception is not necessary. Only knowledge is necessary, as long as the knowledge stems from an acceptable source. Perception would lead to the formation of new opinions and the inclusion of new ideas into the old volume of knowing, something those in control of said volume would not appreciate.
Knowing does not always follow perception. This leads to myriad different outcomes, some better than others. For the opinionated individual, perceptions are form of knowing that does not rely on the input of others: certainty that a particular perception is correct, even if that perception is held by no other individual, gives a completely self-created truth unconnected to the common knowing. For the individual wary of the influence of the knowledge and perceptions of others, no fact is accepted as truth, and all are considered possible carriers of bias or uncertainty.
It would be extremely difficult to find a flawless way of knowing. The perceptions of the ancient philosophers, upon which many of us have built our own explanations of reality and human nature, are still the thoughts of individuals. Though they have been confirmed and supported by hundreds of generations worth of new perceptions, they still bear the mark of an individual mind, an uncited source. A possibly more accurate way of knowing would be to rely on scientific and mathematical facts, perceptions made by machines rather than by humans. Data produced by these entities would be unbiased, barring tampering by their creators. Facts produced by such machines, when given to individuals, would provide them with pure knowing, something they could not get from other sources.
None of this takes into account the possibility that the collective type of knowing may be the best after all. For what is a fact if not a universally accepted truth, even though that truth may be fundamentally untruthful?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
To Know Thyself
To truly know oneself is one of the most difficult, but also the best, things a human can accomplish. A thorough mental and emotional self-examination can be heart-wrenching and painful, but if it is successful, leaves the examiner with a thorough knowledge of his inner workings. To know oneself is to be able to understand what is the best course of action in a given situation--someone with self-knowledge will restrain his initial reaction, examine it, ponder its causes and possible effects, and then select a new reaction if one is deemed more beneficial to his goal. Most of all, to know and understand oneself requires complete honesty. This honesty does not have to be shared with the world, but as long as a man can look into himself and be completely honest with himself about everything he sees and feels, he can know himself.
Someone with thorough self-knowledge is able to accept the consequences of his actions, whether good or bad. Troublesome situations, to someone with knowledge of himself, are the results of carefully plans, and cannot be altered. A person without self-knowledge, finding himself in an unfortunate situation, tends to rationalize and deny his actions and the desires that led him there. Someone with self-knowledge will be able to seek out his flaws in character and decide when to allow them free reign and when to hold them back. This is not to say that he will be free of vices or socially unacceptable ideas, but he will accept that he posesses these qualities and that he has the power to control them or unleash them as he desires. Self-knowledge gives the person who claims it complete control over himself.
It's extremely difficult for me to put a name to my greatest weakness. It's partly sloth and partly disinterest in the normal goings-on of life. It usually manifests itself in what would usually be called procrastination. It's not that I don't do things I'm told to do because I'm lazy, it's that I find other things that are so utterly fascinating that I can't possibly wait to do them. I begin to write my essays the day they're assigned, with high hopes that I'll finish them early, but some nagging idea will cause me to leave the computer to look up some arcane fact that has nothing to do with what I'm supposed to be doing. Before long, I will have learned a great deal about something that nobody would ever expect a teenage girl to care about, but I've gotten nowhere on my essay. Occasionally, I write about something completely different from the assigned topic, like the reflection upon seeing a pencil that I wrote several years ago. This hasn't always turned out badly: some of the most interesting things I know were learned when I was supposed to be learning something else, and I always manage to get my essays in on time.
I also have a tendency to not really care about the things that the rest of society says I should care about. I'm not all that interested in donating my money to charities; I'd rather use it to fund my own college education. That's not to say that I don't contribute to these things when I'm asked, it's just that I feel like I have other things to think about. I still don't have my driver's license, unlike most other people my age, because I don't really feel like calling the driving school and rescheduling the class I missed. I'd like to be able to legally drive, but the stress and drama of getting a license, coupled with the fact that I won't be able to afford a car for at least another ten years, makes me want to ignore this demand on me in favor of more interesting activities.
I've tried to do a lot to combat this weakness, but I've rarely succeeded. I frequently write to-do lists, leave myself notes, and schedule my days so that no time is left for fooling around. However, I can't seem to get myself to follow the lists--I always make up excuses to not do such-and-such activity if I feel like something else has got to get done first. On the rare occasion where I do successfully follow my schedules, the rewards (not having to rush, having enough time for sleep) are beneficial enough to make me want to concentrate on what I'm supposed to be doing rather than what I want to be doing. However, it's rare that I can make myself want to achieve that reward again.
I think my greatest strength is directly related to my greatest weakness. Though I have trouble applying myself to things that I don't care about, when I find something that I get excited about, I get really excited. This is the only thing I have going for me in many situations--since I'm not exceptionally intelligent or artistic and I'm not athletic in the slightest, enthusiasm and curiosity count for a lot. I've spent hundreds of hours (a great many of them designated homework-hours) looking up flight training manuals on the internet, teaching myself about subatomic particles from the parts in the back of the physics textbooks that we aren't taught in school, and climbing trees to photograph sunsets. I've learned about Old English heraldry, destroyed computers, and studied the basics of a dozen different languages not because I was told to, or even encouraged to, but because I really, really wanted to.
I suppose these qualities have made me slightly more perceptive to the world in general-- they may have improved my vocabulary or opened my mind to some new idea or concept. If you look at it realistically, though, what my enthusiasm has brought me so far is not much more than a willingness to try new things and a head full of random facts. I have no idea how I'm going to apply my strengths to making a future for myself, but I'm going to try to do something that doesn't compromise my need for something to get really excited about or something new to investigate.
Over the course of writing this entry, I've done a lot of thinking about my emotions, desires, reactions to events, and past experiences. Writing about strengths and weaknesses obviously requires that the writer understand himself well enough to both recognize these qualities in himself and to put them into words. Writing about weaknesses requires the writer to give up any shame he feels at sharing his flaws with the audience, and to break through any false self-image that he has constructed to protect himself from the truth about his negative aspects. Writing about strengths, while less difficult than weaknesses, requires that the modest writer give up his modesty and speak the absolute truth, while the proud and self-centered writer must sift through his percieved good qualities to find one that truly qualifies as a strength.
While writing, I've found things about myself that I'm not completely sure I've ever found before. I've realized that I should try harder to do what I'm obliged to do, which will leave me ample time to do what I really want to do. I've also realized that self-knowledge is not for those who dislike a rude shock to their carefully constructed lives. However, the people who understand themselves least are the ones who would most benefit from a thorough emotional and mental self-examination.
Someone with thorough self-knowledge is able to accept the consequences of his actions, whether good or bad. Troublesome situations, to someone with knowledge of himself, are the results of carefully plans, and cannot be altered. A person without self-knowledge, finding himself in an unfortunate situation, tends to rationalize and deny his actions and the desires that led him there. Someone with self-knowledge will be able to seek out his flaws in character and decide when to allow them free reign and when to hold them back. This is not to say that he will be free of vices or socially unacceptable ideas, but he will accept that he posesses these qualities and that he has the power to control them or unleash them as he desires. Self-knowledge gives the person who claims it complete control over himself.
It's extremely difficult for me to put a name to my greatest weakness. It's partly sloth and partly disinterest in the normal goings-on of life. It usually manifests itself in what would usually be called procrastination. It's not that I don't do things I'm told to do because I'm lazy, it's that I find other things that are so utterly fascinating that I can't possibly wait to do them. I begin to write my essays the day they're assigned, with high hopes that I'll finish them early, but some nagging idea will cause me to leave the computer to look up some arcane fact that has nothing to do with what I'm supposed to be doing. Before long, I will have learned a great deal about something that nobody would ever expect a teenage girl to care about, but I've gotten nowhere on my essay. Occasionally, I write about something completely different from the assigned topic, like the reflection upon seeing a pencil that I wrote several years ago. This hasn't always turned out badly: some of the most interesting things I know were learned when I was supposed to be learning something else, and I always manage to get my essays in on time.
I also have a tendency to not really care about the things that the rest of society says I should care about. I'm not all that interested in donating my money to charities; I'd rather use it to fund my own college education. That's not to say that I don't contribute to these things when I'm asked, it's just that I feel like I have other things to think about. I still don't have my driver's license, unlike most other people my age, because I don't really feel like calling the driving school and rescheduling the class I missed. I'd like to be able to legally drive, but the stress and drama of getting a license, coupled with the fact that I won't be able to afford a car for at least another ten years, makes me want to ignore this demand on me in favor of more interesting activities.
I've tried to do a lot to combat this weakness, but I've rarely succeeded. I frequently write to-do lists, leave myself notes, and schedule my days so that no time is left for fooling around. However, I can't seem to get myself to follow the lists--I always make up excuses to not do such-and-such activity if I feel like something else has got to get done first. On the rare occasion where I do successfully follow my schedules, the rewards (not having to rush, having enough time for sleep) are beneficial enough to make me want to concentrate on what I'm supposed to be doing rather than what I want to be doing. However, it's rare that I can make myself want to achieve that reward again.
I think my greatest strength is directly related to my greatest weakness. Though I have trouble applying myself to things that I don't care about, when I find something that I get excited about, I get really excited. This is the only thing I have going for me in many situations--since I'm not exceptionally intelligent or artistic and I'm not athletic in the slightest, enthusiasm and curiosity count for a lot. I've spent hundreds of hours (a great many of them designated homework-hours) looking up flight training manuals on the internet, teaching myself about subatomic particles from the parts in the back of the physics textbooks that we aren't taught in school, and climbing trees to photograph sunsets. I've learned about Old English heraldry, destroyed computers, and studied the basics of a dozen different languages not because I was told to, or even encouraged to, but because I really, really wanted to.
I suppose these qualities have made me slightly more perceptive to the world in general-- they may have improved my vocabulary or opened my mind to some new idea or concept. If you look at it realistically, though, what my enthusiasm has brought me so far is not much more than a willingness to try new things and a head full of random facts. I have no idea how I'm going to apply my strengths to making a future for myself, but I'm going to try to do something that doesn't compromise my need for something to get really excited about or something new to investigate.
Over the course of writing this entry, I've done a lot of thinking about my emotions, desires, reactions to events, and past experiences. Writing about strengths and weaknesses obviously requires that the writer understand himself well enough to both recognize these qualities in himself and to put them into words. Writing about weaknesses requires the writer to give up any shame he feels at sharing his flaws with the audience, and to break through any false self-image that he has constructed to protect himself from the truth about his negative aspects. Writing about strengths, while less difficult than weaknesses, requires that the modest writer give up his modesty and speak the absolute truth, while the proud and self-centered writer must sift through his percieved good qualities to find one that truly qualifies as a strength.
While writing, I've found things about myself that I'm not completely sure I've ever found before. I've realized that I should try harder to do what I'm obliged to do, which will leave me ample time to do what I really want to do. I've also realized that self-knowledge is not for those who dislike a rude shock to their carefully constructed lives. However, the people who understand themselves least are the ones who would most benefit from a thorough emotional and mental self-examination.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Best Advice
We were all sitting around the table, my sister and I picking at our broccoli and my parents attempting to start an interesting conversation with one of us. The usual conversation-starter ("So how was school today?") elicited its usual response ("mmmm"). We lapsed into silence again, every one of us fearing the dirty dishes and homework that awaited when the meal was done and nobody could think of anything else to say. Somehow, in a fit of boredom or maybe on the urging of the Imp of the Perverse, I found myself picking the last piece of broccoli up from my plate, placing it in my palm, and flicking it at my sister with a ferocity not usually found in eleven-year-old girls.
As the soggy bit of plant matter soared through the air, flopping helplessly as it went, I realized I had made a horrible mistake. The vegetative projectile would hit its mark, and my sister's eyes would widen with surprise and then quickly narrow with rage. She would lunge to her feet, lean over her plate toward me, and yell, "STUPID MEAN UGLY POOPYHEAD!" or something to that effect. I would cringe and sulk, as those words, from my usually docile sister, would cut me deeply.
That's the way it happened, more or less. My parents watched helplessly as the mood in the dining room went from bland to tense to gloomy in about seven seconds. When they managed to gain control of my sister and I, it was decreed that we would not be allowed to have such unseemly outbursts again, ever.
At first I doubted their ability to keep me from expressing my frustration in the loudest possible manner. But the very next day, as I sat down at the table and looked up expectantly for my serving of mashed potatoes, I saw not my food but a sign taped to the wall across from me. In my mother's elegant but forceful handwriting were the words think before you speak. I turned around to find a matching sign behind me, where my sister could see it clearly. I would think little of it until later that night, when it caught my eye as I was about to whine, Liii-za, why do you pick the pieces of skin out of the mashed potatoes? They're the best part, stupid. Think, the sign said, before you speak. I was about to speak, but I hadn't thought about it at all. I closed my mouth and concentrated on my own meal.
Whenever I find myself about to say something, I see the plain piece of paper bearing the words think before you speak. It's not a complicated idea as far as bits of advice go, but it's saved me from innumerable arguments and other awkward situations.
As the soggy bit of plant matter soared through the air, flopping helplessly as it went, I realized I had made a horrible mistake. The vegetative projectile would hit its mark, and my sister's eyes would widen with surprise and then quickly narrow with rage. She would lunge to her feet, lean over her plate toward me, and yell, "STUPID MEAN UGLY POOPYHEAD!" or something to that effect. I would cringe and sulk, as those words, from my usually docile sister, would cut me deeply.
That's the way it happened, more or less. My parents watched helplessly as the mood in the dining room went from bland to tense to gloomy in about seven seconds. When they managed to gain control of my sister and I, it was decreed that we would not be allowed to have such unseemly outbursts again, ever.
At first I doubted their ability to keep me from expressing my frustration in the loudest possible manner. But the very next day, as I sat down at the table and looked up expectantly for my serving of mashed potatoes, I saw not my food but a sign taped to the wall across from me. In my mother's elegant but forceful handwriting were the words think before you speak. I turned around to find a matching sign behind me, where my sister could see it clearly. I would think little of it until later that night, when it caught my eye as I was about to whine, Liii-za, why do you pick the pieces of skin out of the mashed potatoes? They're the best part, stupid. Think, the sign said, before you speak. I was about to speak, but I hadn't thought about it at all. I closed my mouth and concentrated on my own meal.
Whenever I find myself about to say something, I see the plain piece of paper bearing the words think before you speak. It's not a complicated idea as far as bits of advice go, but it's saved me from innumerable arguments and other awkward situations.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Meaning of Life
More than anything else, people want immortality and money. Unfortunately for the wishful thinkers of the world, one of those things is impossible and the other requires a great deal of skill and luck. So we have to settle for what we've got: one life and a finite set of talents, opportunities, and choices. For those people who can take advantage of their skills and situation, a full and happy life may await. For those who can't, won't, or don't, there's a life (and death) filled with regret, guilt, and general unhappiness.
Writers of inspirational literature, designers of advertising campaigns*, and well-known figures in general are constantly spouting such bits of advice as "live every day to its fullest" and "do something good for the world." One can only assume that the originators of these ubiquitous sentiments were of the regret-and-unhappiness sort. They were likely those who looked back and found that their days were not lived to the fullest, prompting them to remind their children, grandchildren, and the bloke next door not to waste their lives in a cubicle and their money on online poker games. Almost immediately, the fear of an unfulfilled life gripped the public, causing them to do such things as donate to charity and find similar activities that they were told would allow them to get rid of their guilt by making someone else happy. Inspiration-minded folk cackled with glee, having found one more way by which they could manipulate the common man.
This is pure conjecture, of course. But no matter what age he lives in, man (by which I mean man and woman, just to clear that up) wonders why he exists. Is he a puppet of the gods, and is life an opportunity to practice for life after death? Does he exist for the good of others, or is he allowed to be completely self-serving? Or is he, like every other living thing, on this earth for the sole purpose of propagating his race? Oddly enough, man has consigned his fellow animal to the thoughtless life of eating and breeding while raising himself on the pedestal built with the products of his large forebrain and opposable thumbs. He has forgotten that he shares ninety-nine per cent of his genes with creatures that he has deemed not developed enough for thoughts and dreams.
So what constitutes a valuable life? For the humans of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, it's a life that is spent on hard work, with time devoted to leaving a legacy for one's offspring and doing "good deeds" for others. A life spent making oneself happy, we're told, is one that will fill us with regret when viewed with the hindsight of old age. It should seem odd, then, that most of our dreams and wishes involve things that will serve us over others.
What are the things that I hope will make my life valuable, you ask? They're not much different from everyone else's. Some are completely selfish, while some could have residual benefits for the rest of the world. Some will sound cliché, and some will sound weird, but you asked for it.
--I want to have good relationships with my friends and family. I want to be able to count on them for love, support in hard times, and a good laugh in good times. I want them to know that I will do my best to do the same for them. Good relationships with the people in your life who are there for you now and will be there for you in the future is something that really makes life wonderful. Sure, you could live without them, but you'd be lonely and bored.
--I want to be able to help my parents be at peace with themselves, with each other, and with their lives. When my mom and dad divorced two years ago, I felt like the entire foundation on which I had built my life had disappeared from underneath me. This wasn't to say that my parents stopped loving me or that I stopped loving them, it's just that I had lived the previous fifteen years of my life assuming that my family would always be whole. When, all of a sudden, it wasn't, I had no idea what to do with myself. While I have managed to recover, my parents still seem to have minor emotional issues. My father's issues manifest themselves in his frequent baking, and my mother's in her spontaneous trips to South America.** They are both happy doing their own things, and I have little hope that they will reconcile their fundamental differences. However, I want to be able to understand them and help them understand each other, as much for my sake as for theirs. I also want to be able to provide for them, materially and emotionally, whenever and however I need to. I want my dad to be able to retire to the cottage in the English countryside that he's always talked about, and I want my mom to be able to keep gallivanting off to the southern hemisphere as long as she wishes.
--I want to be a pilot. I have loved airplanes since I was very young--I drew them alongside my fairy princesses, begged for toys and models, and dropped whatever I was doing to watch them fly overhead. When I was eleven, my grandfather took me for a ride in his plane, officially kicking off my obsession and giving me a permanent shield against the little-girls-must-like-peaceful-things mindset. For me, flying represents ultimate freedom: from earth, from convention, from gravity. It means being above normal cares--but not all of them, since lack of attention and a disregard for rules may result in a pile of smoking wreckage. This goal isn't something that will benefit humanity, though. The most it could do is make me happy, which could help me do something else to benefit humanity.
--I want to create something amazing. I haven't yet figured out what that amazing thing will be. It could be a work of art that will move grown men to tears. It could be a piece of software so earth-shattering and unique that it will make Sergey Brin and Larry Page smack their foreheads and think, why didn't we hire her as soon as she left college? It could be a building that makes more energy that it consumes, or a bridge that allows people to carpool to work on a different continent. I don't really know the full extent of my capabilities on the creativity front, but I know that I will continue to test my bounds until I have done something that leaves an impact on someone's life, whether he knows it or not. This desire to create something benefits humanity whether it's me doing the creating or not. It is, in my opinion, the second most important factor in the continued advancement of human art, society, and technology (after random accidents)--without people who want to make an impact, the world stops changing.
I would be lying if I said I didn't care about material possessions and financial stability. I would like to be able to live comfortably and provide for a family, if or when I have one. I don't want to have millions to spend on leisure, or even thousands, but I want to be able to do what I love without worrying when my next paycheck will arrive. I also don't want to be dependent on anyone else for financial security-- I want to live on what I earn, not what I'm given. If if earn it doing something I love, then all the better.
*A long-running campaign for Smart Start cereal included the phrase "Carpe Diem: Seize the Day." Parent company Kellogg decided to trademark the phrase, assuming (probably correctly) that the annoyingly chipper lets-have-a-good-start-to-the-morning section of the public would not notice that the term has been around for centuries.
**These aren't bad things, it just means that there are always muffins to be eaten and long slide-shows of bleak landscapes to be watched.
Writers of inspirational literature, designers of advertising campaigns*, and well-known figures in general are constantly spouting such bits of advice as "live every day to its fullest" and "do something good for the world." One can only assume that the originators of these ubiquitous sentiments were of the regret-and-unhappiness sort. They were likely those who looked back and found that their days were not lived to the fullest, prompting them to remind their children, grandchildren, and the bloke next door not to waste their lives in a cubicle and their money on online poker games. Almost immediately, the fear of an unfulfilled life gripped the public, causing them to do such things as donate to charity and find similar activities that they were told would allow them to get rid of their guilt by making someone else happy. Inspiration-minded folk cackled with glee, having found one more way by which they could manipulate the common man.
This is pure conjecture, of course. But no matter what age he lives in, man (by which I mean man and woman, just to clear that up) wonders why he exists. Is he a puppet of the gods, and is life an opportunity to practice for life after death? Does he exist for the good of others, or is he allowed to be completely self-serving? Or is he, like every other living thing, on this earth for the sole purpose of propagating his race? Oddly enough, man has consigned his fellow animal to the thoughtless life of eating and breeding while raising himself on the pedestal built with the products of his large forebrain and opposable thumbs. He has forgotten that he shares ninety-nine per cent of his genes with creatures that he has deemed not developed enough for thoughts and dreams.
So what constitutes a valuable life? For the humans of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, it's a life that is spent on hard work, with time devoted to leaving a legacy for one's offspring and doing "good deeds" for others. A life spent making oneself happy, we're told, is one that will fill us with regret when viewed with the hindsight of old age. It should seem odd, then, that most of our dreams and wishes involve things that will serve us over others.
What are the things that I hope will make my life valuable, you ask? They're not much different from everyone else's. Some are completely selfish, while some could have residual benefits for the rest of the world. Some will sound cliché, and some will sound weird, but you asked for it.
--I want to have good relationships with my friends and family. I want to be able to count on them for love, support in hard times, and a good laugh in good times. I want them to know that I will do my best to do the same for them. Good relationships with the people in your life who are there for you now and will be there for you in the future is something that really makes life wonderful. Sure, you could live without them, but you'd be lonely and bored.
--I want to be able to help my parents be at peace with themselves, with each other, and with their lives. When my mom and dad divorced two years ago, I felt like the entire foundation on which I had built my life had disappeared from underneath me. This wasn't to say that my parents stopped loving me or that I stopped loving them, it's just that I had lived the previous fifteen years of my life assuming that my family would always be whole. When, all of a sudden, it wasn't, I had no idea what to do with myself. While I have managed to recover, my parents still seem to have minor emotional issues. My father's issues manifest themselves in his frequent baking, and my mother's in her spontaneous trips to South America.** They are both happy doing their own things, and I have little hope that they will reconcile their fundamental differences. However, I want to be able to understand them and help them understand each other, as much for my sake as for theirs. I also want to be able to provide for them, materially and emotionally, whenever and however I need to. I want my dad to be able to retire to the cottage in the English countryside that he's always talked about, and I want my mom to be able to keep gallivanting off to the southern hemisphere as long as she wishes.
--I want to be a pilot. I have loved airplanes since I was very young--I drew them alongside my fairy princesses, begged for toys and models, and dropped whatever I was doing to watch them fly overhead. When I was eleven, my grandfather took me for a ride in his plane, officially kicking off my obsession and giving me a permanent shield against the little-girls-must-like-peaceful-things mindset. For me, flying represents ultimate freedom: from earth, from convention, from gravity. It means being above normal cares--but not all of them, since lack of attention and a disregard for rules may result in a pile of smoking wreckage. This goal isn't something that will benefit humanity, though. The most it could do is make me happy, which could help me do something else to benefit humanity.
--I want to create something amazing. I haven't yet figured out what that amazing thing will be. It could be a work of art that will move grown men to tears. It could be a piece of software so earth-shattering and unique that it will make Sergey Brin and Larry Page smack their foreheads and think, why didn't we hire her as soon as she left college? It could be a building that makes more energy that it consumes, or a bridge that allows people to carpool to work on a different continent. I don't really know the full extent of my capabilities on the creativity front, but I know that I will continue to test my bounds until I have done something that leaves an impact on someone's life, whether he knows it or not. This desire to create something benefits humanity whether it's me doing the creating or not. It is, in my opinion, the second most important factor in the continued advancement of human art, society, and technology (after random accidents)--without people who want to make an impact, the world stops changing.
I would be lying if I said I didn't care about material possessions and financial stability. I would like to be able to live comfortably and provide for a family, if or when I have one. I don't want to have millions to spend on leisure, or even thousands, but I want to be able to do what I love without worrying when my next paycheck will arrive. I also don't want to be dependent on anyone else for financial security-- I want to live on what I earn, not what I'm given. If if earn it doing something I love, then all the better.
*A long-running campaign for Smart Start cereal included the phrase "Carpe Diem: Seize the Day." Parent company Kellogg decided to trademark the phrase, assuming (probably correctly) that the annoyingly chipper lets-have-a-good-start-to-the-morning section of the public would not notice that the term has been around for centuries.
**These aren't bad things, it just means that there are always muffins to be eaten and long slide-shows of bleak landscapes to be watched.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Dealing with Impermanence
Contrary to what most people believe, it's not just ancient epic heroes who attempt to find eternal life. Modern humans, too, are afraid of death. One of the main themes in the Epic of Gilgamesh is the idea that death is a natural part of life, and that the life that is given should be enjoyed while it lasts. Humanity has used this and other methods to justify its continued existence on earth.
As Siduri, the wine-maker, says to Gilgamesh, "Dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace, for this too is the lot of man" (p.102). She insists that the best thing man can do with his life is enjoy it, along with everything that nature provides. Since death is inevitable, life should be relished, the fruits of the earth utilized to their fullest, and material pleasures enjoyed without guilt. Gilgamesh refuses to listen to these words of wisdom, and ends up losing the plant of eternal life and returning to Uruk with only "a tale of the days before the flood." Modern followers of this philosophy of life tend to believe that one's time on earth should be spent enjoying the fruits of labor, leaving a legacy for one's children, doing good things, regardless of whether they will be remembered by future generations.
Humans have devised two other methods of dealing with he prospect of leaving this world and never returning. Followers of one method spend their lives attempting to do great deeds. They invent new things, make great art, construct tall buildings or monuments, and otherwise draw attention to themselves in such a way that ensures that they will not be forgotten when they die. This method places a great deal of trust in the length of the human memory. Some people have attained a form of eternal life in this manner, in the minds of those who admire, study, or worship them. Most of these attention-seekers, however, are victims of the habit of humanity to jump from one great thing to the next, continually seeking new idols and new experiences, following that which gives them a sense of importance and permanence of their own. They are forgotten in favor of the next great celebrity, the next tall building, or the next popular song or work of art.
Another type of person is the one who has adhered to the idea that there exists a form of life after death, in a place much better than that in which he lives. Actual life seems insignificant compared to this other life, so much so that it is often neglected in the pursuit of eternal happiness. The only catch involved in attaining this eternal life is that passage into it is regulated by large organizations and other earthly forces, by which I mean religion. Attaining this eternal life usually requires that sacrifices of some sort be made during mortality, usually something along the lines of fasting, prayer, or regular donations to specific causes. The organization in charge can accept or deny any person admittance to their chosen place of rest. Adherents to this method of attaining immortality have chosen to accept that it works without concrete proof, lending those in charge a great deal of power over their followers' behavior.
Belief in any of these three methods is what gives many of the world's people a reason to continue living. For those with the means and motive to make a difference in the world of the living, the great-deeds method is usually preferable. For those who feel as though they are unable or are prevented in some way from leaving some sort of mark in the mortal realms, there's always the hope-for-eternal-life method. In some ways, the first way of life- enjoying it, whether another one is offered afterwards or not- is the hardest to live. It requires that death be accepted as natural, not dreaded or fought against. Those who are able to enjoy their lives are ones who accept the possibility of death peacefully and without guilt or fear.
How modern mortals deal with the impermanence of the world is not a subject that they generally like to discuss. Many people get up and go about their business only because they have conveniently forgotten that they are living the only life that is given to them. Reminding a person that, biologically, their only reason for living is to ensure the continuation of the human race usually causes feelings of insignificance and depression. We go to work and school because it gives us something more stimulating to do than lie in bed and wait for the end of the world. We've also been encouraged to believe that whatever profession we choose, from secretary to brain surgeon, construction worker to military leader, will have a beneficial impact on someone's life. While it may improve someone's life temporarily, that person will eventually die, taking all memories of the person responsible for his happiness with him. From the time of Gilgamesh until today, humans have been seeking eternal life, whether through deeds or through continued belief in the existence of life after death. These methods can seem silly when simply stated, but they are powerful enough that they've gotten the world out of bed every morning for thousands of years.
As Siduri, the wine-maker, says to Gilgamesh, "Dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace, for this too is the lot of man" (p.102). She insists that the best thing man can do with his life is enjoy it, along with everything that nature provides. Since death is inevitable, life should be relished, the fruits of the earth utilized to their fullest, and material pleasures enjoyed without guilt. Gilgamesh refuses to listen to these words of wisdom, and ends up losing the plant of eternal life and returning to Uruk with only "a tale of the days before the flood." Modern followers of this philosophy of life tend to believe that one's time on earth should be spent enjoying the fruits of labor, leaving a legacy for one's children, doing good things, regardless of whether they will be remembered by future generations.
Humans have devised two other methods of dealing with he prospect of leaving this world and never returning. Followers of one method spend their lives attempting to do great deeds. They invent new things, make great art, construct tall buildings or monuments, and otherwise draw attention to themselves in such a way that ensures that they will not be forgotten when they die. This method places a great deal of trust in the length of the human memory. Some people have attained a form of eternal life in this manner, in the minds of those who admire, study, or worship them. Most of these attention-seekers, however, are victims of the habit of humanity to jump from one great thing to the next, continually seeking new idols and new experiences, following that which gives them a sense of importance and permanence of their own. They are forgotten in favor of the next great celebrity, the next tall building, or the next popular song or work of art.
Another type of person is the one who has adhered to the idea that there exists a form of life after death, in a place much better than that in which he lives. Actual life seems insignificant compared to this other life, so much so that it is often neglected in the pursuit of eternal happiness. The only catch involved in attaining this eternal life is that passage into it is regulated by large organizations and other earthly forces, by which I mean religion. Attaining this eternal life usually requires that sacrifices of some sort be made during mortality, usually something along the lines of fasting, prayer, or regular donations to specific causes. The organization in charge can accept or deny any person admittance to their chosen place of rest. Adherents to this method of attaining immortality have chosen to accept that it works without concrete proof, lending those in charge a great deal of power over their followers' behavior.
Belief in any of these three methods is what gives many of the world's people a reason to continue living. For those with the means and motive to make a difference in the world of the living, the great-deeds method is usually preferable. For those who feel as though they are unable or are prevented in some way from leaving some sort of mark in the mortal realms, there's always the hope-for-eternal-life method. In some ways, the first way of life- enjoying it, whether another one is offered afterwards or not- is the hardest to live. It requires that death be accepted as natural, not dreaded or fought against. Those who are able to enjoy their lives are ones who accept the possibility of death peacefully and without guilt or fear.
How modern mortals deal with the impermanence of the world is not a subject that they generally like to discuss. Many people get up and go about their business only because they have conveniently forgotten that they are living the only life that is given to them. Reminding a person that, biologically, their only reason for living is to ensure the continuation of the human race usually causes feelings of insignificance and depression. We go to work and school because it gives us something more stimulating to do than lie in bed and wait for the end of the world. We've also been encouraged to believe that whatever profession we choose, from secretary to brain surgeon, construction worker to military leader, will have a beneficial impact on someone's life. While it may improve someone's life temporarily, that person will eventually die, taking all memories of the person responsible for his happiness with him. From the time of Gilgamesh until today, humans have been seeking eternal life, whether through deeds or through continued belief in the existence of life after death. These methods can seem silly when simply stated, but they are powerful enough that they've gotten the world out of bed every morning for thousands of years.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Why Heroism?
Some of the greatest books and films in human history center around the concept of the hero. From the ancient Greek epics to modern fantasy and science fiction movies, the hero- usually a man, often endowed with some sort of special power or ability- has gone on a journey, searched for something lost, or wielded his sword/bow/light saber/nunchuks/fearsome intellect against an entity seen as "evil." When they succeed in their quests, they are revered by their fellow characters, and hailed by their readers or viewers as brave, noble, selfless, etc, etc. Whether these characters are, in fact, heroes, depends on the individual's idea of a hero.
Clearly, someone whose heroes are famous athletes is not going to be inspired by a Rubik's Cube champion, and someone who looks up to great scientists is not going to care about the exploits of a military leader. A 2001 poll asked Americans what they thought the characteristics of a hero were. "Not giving up" topped the list, followed by such things as "doing what's right," "changing society for the better," and "not expecting personal recognition." If we assume that there are as many definitions of what makes a hero as there are people, then we can conclude that there is no great, universal figure whom we all admire and whose actions we strive to emulate. People like Rosa Parks and New York City's firefighters are held up to us as heroes, but this is because they conform to the politically correct "hero" standard. Rosa Parks didn't wake up one morning and think to herself, "Today's the day I stand up for the rights of my race, and do the deed that will cause little schoolchildren, forty years from now, to say that I am the bravest person in the world." She was probably just tired, pissed off, and sick of being told to move from her seat. She didn't consciously decide to be a hero, but a split-second decision caused her to go down in history as a great leader of the civil rights movement. "Acceptable" heroes such as Parks are the ones who don't give up, change society for the better, and don't expect personal recognition.
However, this image of the selfless everyday person doesn't explain the world's fascination with supernatural heroes, or the ones who do their deeds not out of a desire to "better their communities" but out of hate or a desire for revenge. These heroes are almost exclusively found in fiction, the supernatural ones for obvious reasons, and the vengeful ones because anger and hate are not socially acceptable emotions. We're happy to watch an angry person kill an evil guy in a movie, but if an angry person killed an evil guy in real life he'd be considered a murderer, not a hero.
It is perhaps for these same reasons that many people believe that there are far fewer female heroes (heroines) than there are male heroes. There are just as many heroines in literature and film as there are heroes. However, what makes a heroine admirable to her audience (mainly women) is not usually her intelligence or their skill in combat, traits traditionally applied to male heroes. It is, instead, based on her physical appearances and her ability to help others and keep them- and herself- happy. If by the end of the book or movie she has obtained the affections of a suitable male, so much the better. Heroines such as these are emulated by women worldwide, and judged to be "acceptable" to men.
Heroines that defy this acceptable standard are few and far between. Those who do are seen as unfeminine, and therefore undesirable members of society. While a young girl may admire a warrior princess in a book or film, she cannot emulate the actions of her idol for fear of being judged violent or masculine by society. Women in literature and film who are given the same special abilities as their male counterparts are expected to use them for the good of the community, not for personal gain. A woman who puts her own goals before the cares of those around her is considered selfish. This attitude is seen in everyday life all the time- witness society's views of a woman who chooses to pursue a career, especially a traditionally male one, instead of tending to a family. While these women are occasionally lauded for their courage, they are more often discouraged and considered villains rather than heroes.
In modern society, heroes give the average person someone to admire and to copy. That well-known heroes inspire us to do benefit our societies is a good thing. But other heroes- less socially acceptable ones- often lead their followers down paths that are detrimental to society. Personally, I believe the world would be better off without heroes. For every great figure of the past that is held up as a hero, there is someone in the present who is looking to that figure for guidance instead of looking to himself. If a country is in need of a hero, it means that that country can no longer rely on itself- its leaders and its people- for hope, innovation, strength, or whatever is needed. Someone who needs a hero to inspire him to be brave or selfless has lost his natural ability to be so, and therefore has lost the ability to look out for himself.
Clearly, someone whose heroes are famous athletes is not going to be inspired by a Rubik's Cube champion, and someone who looks up to great scientists is not going to care about the exploits of a military leader. A 2001 poll asked Americans what they thought the characteristics of a hero were. "Not giving up" topped the list, followed by such things as "doing what's right," "changing society for the better," and "not expecting personal recognition." If we assume that there are as many definitions of what makes a hero as there are people, then we can conclude that there is no great, universal figure whom we all admire and whose actions we strive to emulate. People like Rosa Parks and New York City's firefighters are held up to us as heroes, but this is because they conform to the politically correct "hero" standard. Rosa Parks didn't wake up one morning and think to herself, "Today's the day I stand up for the rights of my race, and do the deed that will cause little schoolchildren, forty years from now, to say that I am the bravest person in the world." She was probably just tired, pissed off, and sick of being told to move from her seat. She didn't consciously decide to be a hero, but a split-second decision caused her to go down in history as a great leader of the civil rights movement. "Acceptable" heroes such as Parks are the ones who don't give up, change society for the better, and don't expect personal recognition.
However, this image of the selfless everyday person doesn't explain the world's fascination with supernatural heroes, or the ones who do their deeds not out of a desire to "better their communities" but out of hate or a desire for revenge. These heroes are almost exclusively found in fiction, the supernatural ones for obvious reasons, and the vengeful ones because anger and hate are not socially acceptable emotions. We're happy to watch an angry person kill an evil guy in a movie, but if an angry person killed an evil guy in real life he'd be considered a murderer, not a hero.
It is perhaps for these same reasons that many people believe that there are far fewer female heroes (heroines) than there are male heroes. There are just as many heroines in literature and film as there are heroes. However, what makes a heroine admirable to her audience (mainly women) is not usually her intelligence or their skill in combat, traits traditionally applied to male heroes. It is, instead, based on her physical appearances and her ability to help others and keep them- and herself- happy. If by the end of the book or movie she has obtained the affections of a suitable male, so much the better. Heroines such as these are emulated by women worldwide, and judged to be "acceptable" to men.
Heroines that defy this acceptable standard are few and far between. Those who do are seen as unfeminine, and therefore undesirable members of society. While a young girl may admire a warrior princess in a book or film, she cannot emulate the actions of her idol for fear of being judged violent or masculine by society. Women in literature and film who are given the same special abilities as their male counterparts are expected to use them for the good of the community, not for personal gain. A woman who puts her own goals before the cares of those around her is considered selfish. This attitude is seen in everyday life all the time- witness society's views of a woman who chooses to pursue a career, especially a traditionally male one, instead of tending to a family. While these women are occasionally lauded for their courage, they are more often discouraged and considered villains rather than heroes.
In modern society, heroes give the average person someone to admire and to copy. That well-known heroes inspire us to do benefit our societies is a good thing. But other heroes- less socially acceptable ones- often lead their followers down paths that are detrimental to society. Personally, I believe the world would be better off without heroes. For every great figure of the past that is held up as a hero, there is someone in the present who is looking to that figure for guidance instead of looking to himself. If a country is in need of a hero, it means that that country can no longer rely on itself- its leaders and its people- for hope, innovation, strength, or whatever is needed. Someone who needs a hero to inspire him to be brave or selfless has lost his natural ability to be so, and therefore has lost the ability to look out for himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)