...of bringing up the same topics over and over.
So I won't write a depressing year-end blog. I won't bring up all of the worldwide famine, war and the natural disasters that have taken hundreds of thousands of lives this year. Nor will I make further mention about how morally destitute our society is today, as we will likely forget many of these events, but yet we'll remember stuff like Usher's "Yea" and "Confessions" dropping this year alongside Paris Hilton's porno.
In the spirit of the upcoming New Year, let me change the pace a little bit and ask a simple question: "Does anybody have an afro-wig I can borrow for tonight's party?" I've never done a 70s disco-theme party, nevermind with a bunch of people who were actually alive in the 70s!! I'm wearing one of my dad's old shirts. I truly am my father's son. He was skinnier then I am at my age, so it won't be as loose as it should be. I'll just say this is my shirt with a "70s appeal, but a Gen-Y feel."
I've got no resolutions for the whole of 2005.
-I want to start having more fun outside of the regular venues. Going out and having fun mainly means, wing-night, movies, or clubbing. I can't eat wings like I used to, and I tire of clubbing (although VIP treatment at Ménage last night was simply AWEsome). Truth be told tho, I'll probably do all of these more then once this year.
-I also want to do less drinking-to-have-fun. Clubbing is so boring most times, I've become a clubbing-alcoholic, I like NEED to have a drink when I'm in one. I guess that resolution ties in with the one about finding new places to have fun.
-I want to go somewhere FAR with friends this year. Every year i'm supposed to, but don't. This is an applicable resolution, because it's going to take a big portion of a year to come up with the disposable funds, but i'm doing it. Management ppl, we are going to CUBA May 1st!!
Sadly, this resolution will most definitely have to stand in opposition to my first 2. Cuba was created for drinking and clubbing.
-Maybe start writing this year, or at least get back into doing more reading. I wasted this break and read NO Nietzsche as I planned. I jacked some books from the net tho, I'ma read them, still!
-That's it I guess, no funny or conclusive ending. Happy New Years Everyone!
Old Habits Die Hard
Harder still when you don't want them to die. And so, I actually do have one thought of introspection to get off my chest. It's a quick one though. I think that if I'm ever to become a philosopher, I'm going to have to learn to take a stand. Standing in firm belief that "everything is relative" is not firm enough -although, I maintain that everything is relative. Laying the foundation for either my career in economics, or my career in philosophy, or in my family persuits, like any foundation, will have to start with a firm base. So when I'm writing my thesis for Econ, I'm gonna have to answer that rhetorical but fundamental question, "Is capitalism bad?" And when people ask me "What sort of philosophy interests you," i'm going to have to come up with an answer, especially when my director of studies finally asks me. And when my child asks me a direct and innocent quesiton about reality-at-large, like "What is God?" or "Why do we live?" I'm going to have to be able to tell him (or her) something. "It depends" is almost always correct, but almost never satisfactory, and being right doesn't always get you the grades or pay the bills, so this year I've got to get some satisfaction.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Merry Christmas
I must say that my last post shows me to be somewhat self-absorbed. Surely many people I know are going through bigger hardships then mine. Lacking friends who would absorb themselves in my life isn't the greatest of sorrows. However, I spoke of a problem that I felt needed to be addressed, so I'll leave it at that.
At Midnight Mass this year for Christmas Eve the pastor made mention of a growing phenomenon. People are so easily moved to accept the word of literature or entertainment shows - which are generally inaccurate - as the truth, whereas a book such as the bible is met with such resistance. The probable reason for this is the fact that there is so much stimga against the different religions which follow the testiments. This, compounded with the amount of logical contradictions or statments in the bible which are to be accepted as facts, and aren't accompanied by any deductive proof makes being religious a true test of faith. I mean c'mon, witness testimony these days is considered circumstantial evidence at best; the fact that there were at least 12 eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus seems to not hold up in court anymore, as it were. In any case, this phenomenon got me thinking about something else during the sermon.
Our generation is far too judgmental, in two senses. Firstly, in the sense that we simply pass judgment too much on such things as religion. I mean, for those who feel they are beyond the need or scope of faith, to them I say let those who don't feel the same way have their faith! It's like a grown adult, who long ago lost all desire to suck on a lolly, and now refuses to let a child enjoy the lolly, for no other reason than the adult now knows that a person can get by without it. Back when he was a child, he probably felt he couldn't live without it, but now he 'knows better.' But why refuse the child the lolly, i ask? It makes the child happy, and in the long run it hardly hurts the child. Not at all actually, in fact by allowing the child to enjoy life's pleasures through the lolly, you allow the child to live a fuller and richer life.
As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that I don't see those in need of faith as immature or 'child-like', which my pervious analogy would implicate. In fact I feel we all unarguably have and need faith in something - as our pastor noted during the sermon as well, coincidentally - however I think that is the general feeling of those faith-smashers that I describe.
Secondly, we're too judgemental in the sense that we're unworthy to pass judgment on any religion, and yet we do. First of all, we know nothing about the religions we bash and yet we do, based on our limited knowledge of them. Maybe we've seen a temple, or attended a sermon at church or watched a biased documentary, or something else vague and unsubstantial. But many of us stand in contention to religions that we know nothing about. I say arguing about religion should be left to theologians, or at least the extremely well versed in the subject of religion. Even those who are extremely faithful fall victim to being unwarranted in their dismissal of other religions. I find virtue in the accpetance of unfmailiar religions. I think if you are not tolerant of other established belife systems a hipocracy in your own belief arises, as you fall victim to the following trap created in a popular quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours
-I've seen this quote accredited to two different people, so for copyright purposes I'll simply say that it wasn't me!
In any case, the meat of my monologue is that if people understand the error of being so judgmental then the human community would benefit. In the first sense that I pointed out, I think that if people understand that people need faith, this will lead to religious tolerance, because those who are without faith will be able to at least accept that there are those who need to be with it. In the second sense, I think that if people understand that whether you believe in it or not, the notion of God and the belief in one is far more grand then we it credit, then this will lead to more then just religious tolerance, but rather religious acceptance. This will hopefully have the subsequent effect of civility between belief-groups, where there currently is not.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
At Midnight Mass this year for Christmas Eve the pastor made mention of a growing phenomenon. People are so easily moved to accept the word of literature or entertainment shows - which are generally inaccurate - as the truth, whereas a book such as the bible is met with such resistance. The probable reason for this is the fact that there is so much stimga against the different religions which follow the testiments. This, compounded with the amount of logical contradictions or statments in the bible which are to be accepted as facts, and aren't accompanied by any deductive proof makes being religious a true test of faith. I mean c'mon, witness testimony these days is considered circumstantial evidence at best; the fact that there were at least 12 eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus seems to not hold up in court anymore, as it were. In any case, this phenomenon got me thinking about something else during the sermon.
Our generation is far too judgmental, in two senses. Firstly, in the sense that we simply pass judgment too much on such things as religion. I mean, for those who feel they are beyond the need or scope of faith, to them I say let those who don't feel the same way have their faith! It's like a grown adult, who long ago lost all desire to suck on a lolly, and now refuses to let a child enjoy the lolly, for no other reason than the adult now knows that a person can get by without it. Back when he was a child, he probably felt he couldn't live without it, but now he 'knows better.' But why refuse the child the lolly, i ask? It makes the child happy, and in the long run it hardly hurts the child. Not at all actually, in fact by allowing the child to enjoy life's pleasures through the lolly, you allow the child to live a fuller and richer life.
As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that I don't see those in need of faith as immature or 'child-like', which my pervious analogy would implicate. In fact I feel we all unarguably have and need faith in something - as our pastor noted during the sermon as well, coincidentally - however I think that is the general feeling of those faith-smashers that I describe.
Secondly, we're too judgemental in the sense that we're unworthy to pass judgment on any religion, and yet we do. First of all, we know nothing about the religions we bash and yet we do, based on our limited knowledge of them. Maybe we've seen a temple, or attended a sermon at church or watched a biased documentary, or something else vague and unsubstantial. But many of us stand in contention to religions that we know nothing about. I say arguing about religion should be left to theologians, or at least the extremely well versed in the subject of religion. Even those who are extremely faithful fall victim to being unwarranted in their dismissal of other religions. I find virtue in the accpetance of unfmailiar religions. I think if you are not tolerant of other established belife systems a hipocracy in your own belief arises, as you fall victim to the following trap created in a popular quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours
-I've seen this quote accredited to two different people, so for copyright purposes I'll simply say that it wasn't me!
In any case, the meat of my monologue is that if people understand the error of being so judgmental then the human community would benefit. In the first sense that I pointed out, I think that if people understand that people need faith, this will lead to religious tolerance, because those who are without faith will be able to at least accept that there are those who need to be with it. In the second sense, I think that if people understand that whether you believe in it or not, the notion of God and the belief in one is far more grand then we it credit, then this will lead to more then just religious tolerance, but rather religious acceptance. This will hopefully have the subsequent effect of civility between belief-groups, where there currently is not.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Monday, December 20, 2004
The Movie Network Sucks
They show the same fucking movies, all day, for like a week. And they all suck! I mean, they were showing some really good movies when we first had it back at the old house, but now I can't even watch half the movies they show when I'm bored.
Exams are done.
Now he’s got Lisa Loeb on…I thought Lisa Loeb was pretty hot actually. I love that look; kinda chubby, but cute and youthful. Her glasses were way too thick but generally I think glasses are hot. However, I argue that unlike the likes of her 90s 2-hit wonder counterpart Jewel, her lyrics were less rich with substance. Here I am nearly 10 years later, and I can’t make any sense of what she meant when she said, “..and you smoked with the ghost in the back of my head!” Maybe that line is a complicated metaphor that my grossly undeveloped mind fails to unravel, but I’ve been giving her that benefit of the doubt for 10 years. Today I say, regardless of my intellectual status a truly well-constructed metaphor should be of the sort that the intended audience can both easily connect with and furthermore be moved by.
Getting back to that thing about having no outlet, during exams I was thinking a lot about a passage I read during existentialism. I forget if it was from Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky, but it was a little commentary on human relationships. He highlighted a difference between a person lending themselves to a friend/companion versions authentically lending themselves.
Lending yourself is what everyone does. If we have a friend in need we lend them our ears, or lend them our shoulder for support; lend them our time and effort and precious brain space. Even the most genuine-at-heart fall into this category of ‘simple-lending’ (my terminology, not his), nonetheless it’s not authentic. Authentic-lending carries more virtue. When you authentically lend yourself to a conversation, you don’t just hear it, or listen to it, or respond to it, you feel it. You’re in it, not just a part of it. I’ll draw a quick analogy.
Simple-lending is like when you’ve noticed that your neighbors car hasn’t left the driveway for 5 days, and he’s not on vacation, and lives alone, so you knock on his door a few times, he doesn’t answer, so you knock louder and louder and get concerned, and depending on the person your actions fall somewhere in the range of shrugging it off and going back home, or calling the cops to investigate. Authentic-lending is like you come home from a short-walk and realize you’ve locked yourself out, your 2-year old child is locked inside and you smell smoke. You look in the window and see the flames. At that instant the rest of the universe fades to black and you see nothing but the door, your obstacle, and your goal. All of your actions after that point is authentic-lending: the irrational and vigorous banging-away at the door, the yells, the scream, the passion, the pain, the pleading. You become one with the task of breaking the barrier and getting in touch with what’s on the inside!
Sorry if I just pulled a Lisa Loeb there, but the door/barrier refers to the facades and emotional barriers of your friends, and ‘the inside’ refers to object of your concern, your friend. I think I made a tidy finish of that analogy.
So with authentic-lending, it’s not just about really caring for the other person, or hoping for the best. It’s about having a personal stake in that person’s well-being. Correction, it’s about having a personal stake in that other person’s very existence! I’m lacking that. I mean, I know my family has those feelings for me, that’s a foregone conclusion. But the natural human urge is to find that degree of emotion from someone new. Sometimes when you’re up until the wee hours of the morning thinking about nothing else then the issues and problems of your friends’ lives, you start to wonder if they ever invest that much thought into you. If not, you’re forced to believe one of 2 conclusions. One: that you simply think too much, or two: that you’re simply not worth their thoughts. And then you remember that authentic-lending is a virtue, so one can’t be true, unless virtues are “too much.” But that’s a different philosophical debate.
The average reader of this blog has probably simplified this whole posting into something like, “Jamil’s just starving for affection.” I know I did, when I read about this for class. But for argument’s sake, let’s assume I have the ability to partially dissociate my feelings from my thoughts. I just wonder what’s the cause of all this lack of authentic-lending. Is it something about me? Actually, the better question is a totally different attack at myself. If someone really did want to authentically-lend themselves to me, would I let them? I know a lot of judgmental people, in fact everyone is judgmental. And there’s hardly a day that goes by where I’m not judged by at least someone. Maybe it’s just easier for me to be judged by lenders rather then authentic lenders, because the lenders only judge the mere surface that they’ve made contact with. But if an authentic-lender were to bash away at my door and break inside, and after seeing my core judge me still, that sort of thing might crush me.
For those of you who have taken on this task of reading 1000 words of unabridged
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Jay Z - December 4th. Good song.
Exams are coming up. It's going to be a good 2 weeks of hardcore studying. I mention this first partly because it should be the most pressing issue in my life, and partly because I just wanted to get that out of the way.
It's 5:00am, and I'm up. I just came home from Afterlife. Afterlife was dry, for the following reasons:
i. There was a bunch of dudes who just spent the whole night standing there on the dance floor. Some of them would be cracking jokes to their friends, most likely in an attempt to fend off their own insecurity with not being able to dance. Frick, I mean I'm no Usher but I at least try to have some fun with the music
ii. The girls were kind of lame. I find asian girls all do the same thing in clubs; they spend the whole night dancing provacatively against each other, most likely in an attempt to fend off their own insucrity with not being able to dance. Meanwhile a series of guys try to join in on the wholesome homoerotic fun, only to find the girls pulling themselves away in disgust. I think I saw like 10-15 guys fall victim to that tonight. An all-time high for one night, probably because the whole club was Chinese.
iii. I was sober. I think after awhile you start to realise that clubbing is much more fun when you're drunk, in the same way that sleep is more enjoyable when you're exhausted, or that snacks tastes better when you're high. I couldn't get drunk if I wanted to in there though, all the drinks are so watered down, I picked a good day to DD.
iv. This chick pulled the brown-girl move on me. The brown-girl move refers not to all brown girls, but to one girl in particular. The other day I was at, uhh Fox in Richmond Hill, and this brown chick (who turned out to be the dj's girlfriend) would back up into guys, and dance provacatively in front of them, so that they would ask her to dance, only so she could say, "Eww" so loud that strangers like myself could hear. Today wasn't so bad with me, but this chick totally was dancing it up on her own, gazing back at me, and backing up towards me. This odd looking chinese fellow was standing a good 10 feet away from her, just watching and smiling at her. I was thinking he either liked the way she moved or just happened to know her. Anyway, she kept backing away from him and towards me, so eventually I said, "Why not" and approached her. Yea, turns out it was her man, or a hired cockblocker. Ugh, I knew it!
Which brings me to my final point. Cockblocking is an overused artform. Honestly, there's not as many guys trying to get immediate sex as it's made out to be. Moretimes, the guy really just wants to dance. Tonight was like a grade school dance, except instead of having girls on one side of the gym and guys on the other, there were, girls dancing in their famous circles, couples dancing drunkenly throught the club, and then the onlooker chaps around the bar. I can't imagine being one of those guys that goes to a club, just to stand by the bar the whole night with a beer in my hand. To me that's on par with , i dunno, signing up for a gym to get fat, or paying for university just to go to pub nights, or watching Jessica Alba films for any form of mental stimulation. In any case, tonight I might as well have been, because I spent the night dancing away like a madman. But here at home I'm 50 dollars poorer and I wonder what was really acclompished. Hardly seems worth it.
At least Annie (the birthday girl) got smashed and had fun. That was the point of the night anyhow. So not all was lost; just her lunch! haha
It's 5:00am, and I'm up. I just came home from Afterlife. Afterlife was dry, for the following reasons:
i. There was a bunch of dudes who just spent the whole night standing there on the dance floor. Some of them would be cracking jokes to their friends, most likely in an attempt to fend off their own insecurity with not being able to dance. Frick, I mean I'm no Usher but I at least try to have some fun with the music
ii. The girls were kind of lame. I find asian girls all do the same thing in clubs; they spend the whole night dancing provacatively against each other, most likely in an attempt to fend off their own insucrity with not being able to dance. Meanwhile a series of guys try to join in on the wholesome homoerotic fun, only to find the girls pulling themselves away in disgust. I think I saw like 10-15 guys fall victim to that tonight. An all-time high for one night, probably because the whole club was Chinese.
iii. I was sober. I think after awhile you start to realise that clubbing is much more fun when you're drunk, in the same way that sleep is more enjoyable when you're exhausted, or that snacks tastes better when you're high. I couldn't get drunk if I wanted to in there though, all the drinks are so watered down, I picked a good day to DD.
iv. This chick pulled the brown-girl move on me. The brown-girl move refers not to all brown girls, but to one girl in particular. The other day I was at, uhh Fox in Richmond Hill, and this brown chick (who turned out to be the dj's girlfriend) would back up into guys, and dance provacatively in front of them, so that they would ask her to dance, only so she could say, "Eww" so loud that strangers like myself could hear. Today wasn't so bad with me, but this chick totally was dancing it up on her own, gazing back at me, and backing up towards me. This odd looking chinese fellow was standing a good 10 feet away from her, just watching and smiling at her. I was thinking he either liked the way she moved or just happened to know her. Anyway, she kept backing away from him and towards me, so eventually I said, "Why not" and approached her. Yea, turns out it was her man, or a hired cockblocker. Ugh, I knew it!
Which brings me to my final point. Cockblocking is an overused artform. Honestly, there's not as many guys trying to get immediate sex as it's made out to be. Moretimes, the guy really just wants to dance. Tonight was like a grade school dance, except instead of having girls on one side of the gym and guys on the other, there were, girls dancing in their famous circles, couples dancing drunkenly throught the club, and then the onlooker chaps around the bar. I can't imagine being one of those guys that goes to a club, just to stand by the bar the whole night with a beer in my hand. To me that's on par with , i dunno, signing up for a gym to get fat, or paying for university just to go to pub nights, or watching Jessica Alba films for any form of mental stimulation. In any case, tonight I might as well have been, because I spent the night dancing away like a madman. But here at home I'm 50 dollars poorer and I wonder what was really acclompished. Hardly seems worth it.
At least Annie (the birthday girl) got smashed and had fun. That was the point of the night anyhow. So not all was lost; just her lunch! haha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)