fezline's blog: "Structured Lunacy"

I would just like to comment on a few things that I have been thinking about. Some of us tend to really let ourselves get depressed about the condition that we are in. We look at the status of our love lives and think "Why am I not good enough for anyone?" but we ignore all the factors that prove that perspective wrong. There have been very few people that I have known that didn't have someone overly interested in them. It is this level of interest that generally puts a person off and causes them to write the other off as a less than significant annoyance. The idea here is this; all these people wallowing in self pity ignore the ones that they are actually good enough for. It is a pretty unfair thing to do to equate these other people as so insignificant as to ignore them totally in your understanding of "anyone". I have caught myself from time to time feeling the same way, but fortunately I have caught myself every time and noticed that I am not being fair to those who are actually interested. It does not feel good to not be good enough for a person you are interested in and it is valid to be upset about it. It is not a healthy practice to over dramatize the situation and lie about your condition to yourself and others because it only makes you more depressed. Some people reading this might see this as an attack on them personally. I know a few people who recently have called me almost crying about this very thing. I just want to let those few know that this is not the inspiration for me writing this. I have recently had these feelings and spent some time reflecting on it and determined that I was not being honest with myself. In realizing that I actually felt a little better because I understood my condition wasn't as bad as I was making it out to be. This is not really the kind of material that I usually talk about but I decided I would just have an out of character moment. I have a lot more to say about this but I just got a phone call to join someone at the gym so I will leave it at this. Later all...

When ever I hear the word addiction the first thing that comes to mind is drugs, alcohol, or any sort of substance that can be abused in some fashion. It is more often than not that this word gets assigned a negative connotation. There are some addictions that can actually produce positive results but by and far addiction is not a positive thing. Some examples can include being addicted to sports or your job or any sort of hobby oriented activity. A productive addiction can be cultivating but it can also be consuming. An addiction is something that you long and need for and are willing to sacrifice responsibilities and needs in the process of feeding this addiction. So I guess to give this word a negative connotation would be fair. Ok enough background information I should start to elude to my point here. The thing is we have so many things in our lives that we dont even realize that we are addicted to until we dont have that aspect as part of our lives any more. An example of this would be friends, we are addicted to that daily social interaction we have with these people and the feelings associated with having that friend. It isnt really considered an addiction though, its really considered a positive and constructive part of life and I do agree with that for the most part. I enjoy having friends that I can trust and share a mutual respect for. I have had the misfortune of meeting a lot of shady people or people who consider my perspective immoral or just plain wrong. So suffice it to say I dont hold to many people close to my heart because it is not healthy to stay associated with those people who dont respect you and you cant trust. I am straying from my point but I am trying to circle around what I am about to get into. The plain fact is that we feel the need for social interaction and acceptance. We want to be validated by having others desire to be in our presence or to share experiences with us. I dont find any fault in the things I have just mentioned; I feel friendships (when they are healthy and constructive) are extremely valuable and are one of the very few things in life with substance. What I would to get at though is that often I find that people latch on to others just for the plain fact of having others around for validation. Most of the social circles that I have seen consist of people who have met through some common theme and generally tolerate one another just to get out of the situation what they can. I find that most of the time people are really disinterested in what you have to say and most of the time dont even listen and struggle in anticipation for their time to speak. Its like they assign no merit to what you have to say and they just want the floor to spew whatever it is they think or feel in that moment with no consideration to the other people. I have not met many people that do that blatantly though. I often find that what happens is people will fake their interest and concern and prove it later by quickly changing the subject or talking about themselves or whatever they think is so fantastic about their lives. It is hard to find people who you can consider a true friend but what I want to say is that most people maintain destructive relationships because they are too weak to deal with the notion of not having other people around for validation or someone to vent to. I dont blame people for wanting support; god knows we all need that from time to time. I guess the part of that I have a hard time with is that I couldnt really value any support from anyone I know that doesnt really respect who I am or care for me. I think that for the most part everyone is a social addict and we dont even know it. Its like those times when you write someone off for a good reason but your sitting around bored with nothing to do; its hard to fight that urge to call that person and strike up a conversation and possibly ask them if they would like to hang out or do something. What I want to say is I think people as a whole should try to be stronger and more resolute. People should not depend on others for their validation or to be their audience such that they can maintain or build their egos. Some people use others for pity as well; people will try and make themselves look like such victims in an effort gain more attention and to establish themselves as the central most important thing to others by virtue of trying to make all things concerning others petty in comparison to the trials and tribulations they had to endure. I have recently had to disassociate myself with some people and it was not easy. Its hard to not talk to the people you have talked to on a frequent basis even if you know they have destructive qualities. But as the days go by it gets easier and the hardest part is making that first step and maintaining your resolve. It is never easy to kick an addiction no matter what it is but when it comes to social addictions; well, for the most part people dont consider it an addiction so it makes it all that much more hard to kick the destructive elements out of your life. In a nut shell I think friends are very valuable but people seem to pervert the term friend in a selfish way to maintain their peace of mind. I feel that people who latch onto others who hurt them and dont care about them are weak and shallow minded. I have fallen prey to this activity but I have learned from my mistakes and I am doing my best to live in accordance to what I have learned. We will see where that gets me I guess. Anyways that is my rant for the day. Later everyone.

I have come to find that as I experience and witness things over time, the more cynical I become. I understand that this may be a result of being negative and not focusing on the positive. Also it may be a result of self full filling prophecy; such as, being negative ends up producing negative results. I have spent some time writing off all the bad things that happened to me in an effort to search for the good. I was hoping that maybe I could start to isolate the good, take note of it, and start to realize that things are not as bad as they seem. Unfortunately, my efforts to find the good, in some substantial sense to offset the bad, were fruitless. I did not really find anything happening in my life to offset the bad things that I witnessed or experienced. I can have some control over the things I encounter and I am starting to think that my attitude plays a major role in the outcome of most things. It is possible that for one to establish balance in their life they must also change their attitude, this is a hard thing to do but I am quite certain it is possible. It is hard to ignore our past and experiences in order to function as a positive person culturally speaking. But it is a necessary but insufficient condition in order to try and establish balance in your perception of the world. Some say that in order to be happy and see the good is to understand who you are and come to terms with it. Understand that you are human and you are unique. You will never be perfect and understand that no matter how hard you try you can't be perfect. You are human and inherently flawed and so is everyone else. Some of us appear to be more flawed than others but that is only because we are supposed to fit into the guidelines for which our culture sets for us. If the qualities and traits that we are born with make it difficult for use to accept and agree to these guidelines we are considered to be more substantially flawed than the average person. The fact is if we were not put into this restrictive framework we would all equally be different in our own ways and no one could really place judgement on another as to what traits about you would be a positive feature or a negative flaw. Basically what I am getting at is be happy with who you are. I know without question that everyone does know who they are. People tend to say and even think they have trouble with their identity. I feel that most people just want to shape what others think of them or change who they are such that they fit in better and give people the impression that they want them to have. The problem is not knowing who you are, it's a matter of not denying who you are and being comfortable with that. We are all different and no one person is better than another. For those of us who think otherwise I would have to say that they have a need to think they are better than someone in order to establish some feeling of self worth. That is fine if that what works for them as long as they don't try to bring other people down in the process of doing so. Ok well that is my rant for the day. This quote I am going to post somewhat is related to what I have said here. It has to do with self image and innocence that one once had in an earlier time when they had not experienced adversity on the scale at which may have changed their perspective, this type of experience is generally like a one way valve, you can go in but you can't get out, forever scarred. The confusion only seems to grow with time. Direction is lost within the maze of life, and the light seems to be sucked into an abyss, never to be seen again. People only stay for small pockets of time before moving on to more important things. So the question arises, do you keep moving forward into the madness, stop and risk missing out, or go back to times you think were more comfortable only to find that they have changed while you were gone? -Lisa M.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the topic of individuality and personal identity. It is my perception that as a person develops cognitive abilities, they are molded by aspects of their life and environment. Some of the contributing factors include society, experience, family, and genetics. It would be useful to understand what character is and also what it means to be an individual. As I think about the definition of individuality it becomes harder to accept that any one person can actually stake this claim with any merit. It is my perception that to be a true individual would actually make you a social deviant on a scale that I dont think most people understand. To be a true individual would make you completely insane and out of touch with the commonly accepted version of reality. The first thing I would like to address is the definition of individuality. I would like to say that individuality is a combination of qualities that encompasses who you are. Some of the elements of individuality would be the following: tastes, morality, manner, physical appearance, activity, world view, concept of reality, mental dexterity, compassion etc I dont think I could ever really encapsulate the concept of individuality with just a few words but this is how I understand it in a nut shell. As I look at the things I just listed it appears to be a pretty fair balance between things that you can and can not control. The thing is that most people judge them selves based upon what others think of them. It is not quite that simple though, people dont always care about what just anyone thinks or says about how they act, feel, and think. When a person feels that they are understood by someone they will assign merit to their evaluations of their actions. I am not trying to say that everyone is judgmental and or should be for that matter. There are many occasions where a person would either want another perspective and or would have another perspective introduced to them. A person in a moment of introspection might want to ask another for their perspective on a view they hold. The fact that a person calls into question their reasoning is healthy and keeps one honest and open minded. It is mentally taxing to try and be this way all the time so I am not trying to say that I feel everyone should be up for this sort of interaction at all times. A change in ones view or moral structure is a pretty substantial blow to the equilibrium one has established through their view of reality. It is a slow and gradual process but I think it is a healthy one. When people introduce their perspective to someone, it is usually prompted by the person in question doing something hurtful to them selves or others. I wont deny the fact that some people do this purely out of malice or otherwise. There are those who could care less about helping others and their only focus is to bring others down to make them feel better about themselves but that is not what I am talking about here. What I am talking about are those people who will tell their friends the truth when others might just tell their friends what they think they want to hear. The fact is those that might say something that could possibly put off their friend but they might consider helpful are the ones who are being truly altruistic. When a person says things like this to their friends they know it will elicit an emotional response in some cases that will be uncomfortable but it is usually a means to a better end. A person could possibly stop engaging activities that hurt themselves or others in which would contribute to the overall greater good. Society contributes to developing our social norms. The general etiquette involved in conversing with others of certain status or gender is one of the first things we learn as a child. The fact that one should say thank you when someone does something nice for them or to address their elders with respect by using the prefix Ms. or Sr. is an indication that our society trains social norms. The time of day one should be asleep or awake, the laws one should obey, the fact that one should wear clothing, these are all things that are impressed upon us by society. The wearing of clothing does serve a protective utility but if not wearing clothes can only put you in physical harms way others shouldnt care. The thing is in this society of course we would care if people were walking around naked, we would be shocked and appalled. As I think about it though, I dont understand why our most natural form is considered offensive. I will admit that my first reaction would be much the same but that is because I have been conditioned to feel that way by society. From an objective stand point though there is no reason the human form should be considered dirty or offensive in any circumstance. I am just using this as an example though; I dont advocate this sort of activity because I think it would weird me out. I am just trying to say that if we start to try and think outside of what we have been trained to think and the reasoning behind it you begin to see things dont really seem to be founded on anything substantial. We take on these views and we make them part of ourselves much the same way a computer can have an application installed on it and perform its functions. The main point is this, we dont make up our own minds about these things we are trained to feel this way. People will take things to and extreme and wear different clothing and live different lifestyles such as Goths or people who are into body modification but I would be hard pressed to call them individuals. They are not expressing themselves any different than anyone else does in that subculture. Experience is what makes us form our view of the world. The fact that we experience one thing and end up with the same results within a certain margin of probability over and over is what makes us believe that we know something for certain. If one understands the finer points of quantum mechanics this reasoning would not be sound. Since with live in the macroscopic world though I dont think we really have to worry about that. If a person grows up in a racist community and only knows oppression and prejudice then that person would feel that is how things are regardless if in other places things are not like that. Its much like the whole concept explained in Platos republic and the allegory of the cave. All the people see are shadows dancing on a wall while shackled in a cold dark cave. The scope of all their understanding of the world is defined by this 2 dimensional vision of reality. The ability to break the chains and go to the surface would yield a world unknown to any of these individuals. A person coming back from this experience would try and explain this world to the others but would be hard pressed to convey the wonder with what little they have learned from shadows. How do you explain depth and color to a person who only knows black and white and 2 dimensional objects? The person would be dismissed as a lunatic and the people would go on with their lives. The idea here is we are only individuals within the bounds of the shackles that experience and society has placed on us. Family is like the tool of society to implement the social standards. The family is what trains you on the etiquette and what is right and wrong. The way to run your life and how to pursue happiness are all things we learn from our parents. I would have to say the family serves much the same function as society does and the results are invariably different. I by no means am trying to say the world is like a cookie cutter that creates drones. But you can walk up to a person and basically know what to expect by way of our training on how to interact with other people. We do make choices as to what we want to accept and believe and that is what I think most people will like to hang their hat on. I read a book once that basically broke down the meaning of life to two words, they are as follows: Choose again. The idea there I think is the fact that we have free will is what makes us different. The problem is our choice is shaped by our training and experience. It is hard to say that the choice is yours alone. Genetics is the only real true individuality that we have. The person we are biologically can not be replicated. The dna can be cloned and such but the problem is a person can not be in the same place at the same time at all times therefore the system of one being is always going to be different than the other on some subtle level. The fact that you can end up bumping into something or catch some debilitating disease is what would start to make ones body different than its clone. Some of the aspects that are part of our genetic individuality are as follows: appearance, health, intelligence, dexterity. The thing is all of these things will effect how people perceive us and the results of our experiences. Some examples of a persons genetics yielding different results would be found in things requiring great strength and things requiring a symmetrical visage. These people are all being born into the same reality but very different are the aspects for which it yields to them. The only chink in the armor of my thoughts on this matter is contained within this paragraph. Your genetics does play a role in all of these things but what I do want to point out is environment is also key. People who grow up around negativity tend to be negative. This example can be extended into just about any aspect of an environment and will shape a persons character. As humans we have certain natural instincts to survive. It is a necessary condition for survival that the needs for the following are satisfied: food, water, air, sleep, security. The first known bi pedal hominids which I believe were called the Australopithecus afarensis had basic needs and desires which all pretty much stemmed from the aforementioned core requirements. The progressive cognitive ability of these creatures is what started to create persona which defined their individuality. The ego of these creatures was crudely defined by ones physical prowess and also ability to serve its function in the localized community. Males would compete for mates and the role of the alpha. This struggle for mates would settle and would create social strata that would establish the distinction between others. Not to leave out the females but for the sake of brevity I must. Basically the point I am trying to make here is even in our most primitive form we had a sense of identity and a desire to be better. In this arena it seems that the dominant characteristic was genetics in establishing identity. Im not speaking on any first hand knowledge here because my time machine isnt working properly; the damn flux capacitor is on back order so I will have to leave this as an assumption. I dont think there was a lot of personality in these creatures it was more of a continuous battle for dominance and mates. Another factor was how many offspring one could bring into the world, the more offspring the more "fit" the animal would be considered from a Darwinist perspective. Infanticide was common in these groups due to the fact that the females would have many partners and if a male was under the impression that the offspring of his mate was not his own he would kill it. This was another indicator of the male ego and its frailty. The whole idea behind everything I just bored the shit out of you with is this; the basis for individuality was pretty tenuous. The other aspects of their day to day lives were either by instinct or learned by the community with which these creatures thrived. The major advantage any being would have over another would simply be the genetics that gave them the physical advantage. The current conventional wisdom, as I perceive it, as to what makes a person an individual is the mind and not so much the body. The in tangible entity that philosophers have tangled with for ages is what is currently understood to be the key factor in individuality. It seems that our egotistical view of being part of something greater or our need and desire to have some purpose is what makes the mind such a mystifying topic to most. To some it takes on an almost astral quality which transcends space and time. I am not sure how I feel about all of that but I do agree that our mind is what defines us in the current state of affairs. It was the development of culture that created this change in archetype. The advent of stone tools and fire is what introduced the level of complexity which enabled the mind to start to flourish. I am slowly but surely getting to the main point but I am not quite there yet. I am trying to show a natural progression, a flux if you will, that contains the concept of individuality. The advent of technology made things more efficient and allowed for more exploration and utilization of the land that wasnt before possible. These changes in the quality of life allowed for people to explore the vast sea of knowledge and opportunity that started to unfold. It would be a persons natural affinity towards any one specific trade or action that would cause them to become encompassed with learning more about it and developing the craft. Everything at this point was in its infancy including culture. Creatures started to take on a whole new dimension because the number of things one can be interested in grew by many orders of magnitude. The development of languages and dialects also provided for a faster and more refined means of communication. These aspects all began to diverge into a mass explosion of individuality. The point I am trying to make here is this, individuality is sparked by differences in pursuit and not because of ones nature. It is not something you are born with but rather it is something that is developed over time. Our character is a product of our environment, of our experience and yes of our nature as well but I will have to say the dominant factors are those for which we have no control over. The thing is we dont have this omnipotent view of the universe and reality. With a lack of an absolute understanding we must occasionally reflect on our views and opinions and morality. We gain perspective as we grow up and some things we considered concrete elements of our character as teenagers end up turning into painful lessons and perspective shifts as we become adults. The whole point I am trying to bring across is this, I think a person should be open about who they are and the way they see things. A person should be willing to put their reason to the test and if it fails the person should be willing to adjust and not consider it an effrontery to who they are. I have personally had people tell me that they are liars or cheaters by nature and I should take it or leave it and if I didnt then I didnt accept the person they were. Personally the way I see that is just being arrogant, stubborn, obstinate, and closed minded. It is abundantly obvious that in the case that I just presented that the person should adjust their ways because by virtue of the golden rule of, do unto others as you would want done unto yourself, they are facing a double standard. It is this elitist attitude that I think bothers me the most. But the example I am giving is a pretty extreme case. This whole discussion here I guess is based on the concept of helping people see things from a different light because what they are doing might be hurting you or others. I often find that no matter how carefully I try and approach these situations these people become highly defensive and say that I wont accept the person they are. The real problem is they wont engage in a constructive discussion about the matter. I dont claim to be any authority on this matter but I am open to discussion. I am more than happy to be wrong, I actually like to be wrong because I learn something new. I dont hold pride in my opinion and I dont think others should either. It is pride that is the central problem when it comes to people opening up to alternate ways of seeing and interacting with things.

Some people like to say it is better to have loved and lost rather than to have never loved at all. I would like to start off by saying that love is a very powerful thing. Love can transform the smartest person in the world into a blithering idiot. Love is a blissful state of mind that is almost like being on some relaxing drug which makes everything seem alright in the world. I can go on listing what I know love to be for myself but I think I am starting to stray from the point I was about to make. The thing is this; I don't think it is better to have love and lost than to have never loved at all. The reason being is as follows: You would never take a bum off the streets, put him in a 7 star hotel in Dubai, completely cater to his or her every whim and desire, and then toss him or her back out on the streets. The reason is this, if you get used to a certain standard of living or reality, it is really hard to transition and or be forced into another reality of an inferior quality. To give that bum the best week of his or her life would be equivalent to the worst possible torture you could possibly put him or her through. For the remainder of the bums days he or she will know exactly what they are missing out on. To have loved is much the same way, if you never have loved you don't really understand what you are missing. You want it because you see everyone who is in that state and they seem to be so happy and complete but you really don't understand the depths of it until you actually experience it. The experience of love I think would amount to that first time you do heroin. I have never done it myself but from what I understand it is quite addicting. The bottom line is this, you are hooked and you want to do everything you can to keep it. The thing is once it's lost you never wain off of the withdrawal. As time goes on the absence of love in your life strengthens your longing for that element back in your life. If you have never experienced love this magnitude of thirst for love isn't as apparent. A person who has not experienced love might be upset at the fact but not to the degree of a person who has loved and no longer has it in their life and never will again for that matter. It is those people who have to face this reality that are in the sorriest state of affairs. It is those who have loved and lost that have the most sorrow to endure. Not the ones who have never loved at all..