Monday, April 12, 2004
Eyagh... looking back on previous posts after a friend of mine told me he had seen my entries, and I couldn't remember what entries he could be referring to. Another friend suggested trying to keep lists of entries rather than try to explode everything at once. (You know who you are).
Anyhow, this post is dedicated to Ms. _____-____.
I think it would be quite something to feel that what I, myself, needed to be happy and healthy, could be carried in one bag. House, rent, etc. are liabilities. Sure, I could just be homeless and never bathe, but I think such a thing might be possible with no real detriments to myself as a socially acceptable human being. I mean, as far as other people are concerned, you are who you present yourself to them as- what sort of stuff goes on beyond the scenes is rarely obvious, and pretty inconsequential. Who cares if someone you know is a millionaire or a sharecropper? People seem to think that the actions one considers representative of who they are (or who they would like to be) have to be acted out, even with no one else present? I could be dapper and go home to a roach infested apartment and you might not pry enough to know the difference.
But back to the one bag idea: I think the key is as accurate a notion of your personal needs as possible, the essentials. The closer you are to having an idea of exactly what you need or want, the more directly you can go to it, with little extraneous material. The more pointed your choices, the more readily and rapidly you can serve your needs, with a minimal amount of time and effort. It's all about performance to weight ratio.
The advantage of such a choice? Supreme mobility. Really, the lighter and less stuff you have (Let's assume you personally have/own things when you find a regular, repeat need for them that makes it more convenient to own rather than seek out) the more you can do, and the less tied to a specific location you are. You don't necesarily have to move about from place to place; you have the option of doing so with minimal inertia, or you can stay in one place for an indefinite period of time. Rather than force yourself to be a non-random, non-impulsive person, see if you can devise a set of tools that allows you to be random and impulsive to a maximum degree, by providing a solid, effective, and unobtrusive regimen.
I for one cannot anticipate a future for myself where I stay at home in my castle, surrounded by piles of crap, paying mortgages for a premium of space that is more a repository for my junk rather than a space I can use for my self. It seems to me that most people, even the very poor, accumulate more crap than they could possibly use, only because none of it adequately serves their needs, and it takes less thought to keep buying things than it does to think out exactly what you hope to accomplish by it.
I suggest exploring: www.onebag.com and "The Complete Walker IV" by Colin Fletcher and Chip Rawlins (ISBN 0375703233)
Anyhow, this post is dedicated to Ms. _____-____.
I think it would be quite something to feel that what I, myself, needed to be happy and healthy, could be carried in one bag. House, rent, etc. are liabilities. Sure, I could just be homeless and never bathe, but I think such a thing might be possible with no real detriments to myself as a socially acceptable human being. I mean, as far as other people are concerned, you are who you present yourself to them as- what sort of stuff goes on beyond the scenes is rarely obvious, and pretty inconsequential. Who cares if someone you know is a millionaire or a sharecropper? People seem to think that the actions one considers representative of who they are (or who they would like to be) have to be acted out, even with no one else present? I could be dapper and go home to a roach infested apartment and you might not pry enough to know the difference.
But back to the one bag idea: I think the key is as accurate a notion of your personal needs as possible, the essentials. The closer you are to having an idea of exactly what you need or want, the more directly you can go to it, with little extraneous material. The more pointed your choices, the more readily and rapidly you can serve your needs, with a minimal amount of time and effort. It's all about performance to weight ratio.
The advantage of such a choice? Supreme mobility. Really, the lighter and less stuff you have (Let's assume you personally have/own things when you find a regular, repeat need for them that makes it more convenient to own rather than seek out) the more you can do, and the less tied to a specific location you are. You don't necesarily have to move about from place to place; you have the option of doing so with minimal inertia, or you can stay in one place for an indefinite period of time. Rather than force yourself to be a non-random, non-impulsive person, see if you can devise a set of tools that allows you to be random and impulsive to a maximum degree, by providing a solid, effective, and unobtrusive regimen.
I for one cannot anticipate a future for myself where I stay at home in my castle, surrounded by piles of crap, paying mortgages for a premium of space that is more a repository for my junk rather than a space I can use for my self. It seems to me that most people, even the very poor, accumulate more crap than they could possibly use, only because none of it adequately serves their needs, and it takes less thought to keep buying things than it does to think out exactly what you hope to accomplish by it.
I suggest exploring: www.onebag.com and "The Complete Walker IV" by Colin Fletcher and Chip Rawlins (ISBN 0375703233)
Friday, February 27, 2004
Visual culture = disdain for optical culture; "what you see is what you need to see".
So what if I see religion as weak minded, crippling to the effect one can have: belief that things happen for a reason means that it is not your place to intervene, if it is fated, then it should make no difference what you do, and therefore you have no reason to not go out and be crazy all the time. Responsibility of free choice: "Indian giving" (terrible term), like free voting at a ballot box where someone is waiting to "encourage" you to make the right choice with a club over your head. "Under duress"; the threat of imminent (or eternal!) bodily harm is not free choice, is not a test. I don't think I'd like to hang out with an asshole who needs that kind of ego gratification for all eternity. I get enough of that from day to day (am I in Heaven?).
If someone wanted to nail me up in exchange for undying gratitude and love by all people for all eternity, sign me up! People have done harder things to earn that kind of respect.
If someone wanted to nail me up in exchange for undying gratitude and love by all people for all eternity, sign me up! People have done harder things to earn that kind of respect.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
So what if Jesus is the messiah? What personal responsibility does this preempt you to? Are "you" born in to a responsibility, born without being asked? If, theoretically, one were to believe the Christian doctrines of Jesus, God, Heaven, and Hell were possibly true, and not give a shit, what would this make them? Apathetic agnostic?
"Someone has big plans for you"
actually, probably marginal, compartmentalizing plans that prevent them from needing to deal with you as an individual with your own desires, outlooks, fears, etc. A fascist bowling over and obliteration of all complexity and idiosyncracy driven by the need to assign a hierarchy to things in order to make a personal sense of them, despicable for the psychological violence it perpetrates, and offensive from a purely aesthetic standpoint given the remarkable disingenuity of its explanations.
I'd love to go to an alt-health convention and watch the charlatans argue over the various merits of homeopathic tincture versus magnetized water. And of course some other apologist will say that there are those that give the practice a bad name, for not using "scientific" methods, while using studies that are mockeries of basic techniques of scientific inquiry. I am mortified to think that many people who are in the practice believe beyond a doubt that what they do works; I doubt that many of them are calculated enough to be able to engage in an outright scam.
Sick of people thinking their opinions are valid because "we are all entitled to our opinions", or because they can find quorum with others who are equally as deranged.
I love the Internet/United States/religious institutions/&c.
"Someone has big plans for you"
actually, probably marginal, compartmentalizing plans that prevent them from needing to deal with you as an individual with your own desires, outlooks, fears, etc. A fascist bowling over and obliteration of all complexity and idiosyncracy driven by the need to assign a hierarchy to things in order to make a personal sense of them, despicable for the psychological violence it perpetrates, and offensive from a purely aesthetic standpoint given the remarkable disingenuity of its explanations.
I'd love to go to an alt-health convention and watch the charlatans argue over the various merits of homeopathic tincture versus magnetized water. And of course some other apologist will say that there are those that give the practice a bad name, for not using "scientific" methods, while using studies that are mockeries of basic techniques of scientific inquiry. I am mortified to think that many people who are in the practice believe beyond a doubt that what they do works; I doubt that many of them are calculated enough to be able to engage in an outright scam.
Sick of people thinking their opinions are valid because "we are all entitled to our opinions", or because they can find quorum with others who are equally as deranged.
I love the Internet/United States/religious institutions/&c.
