Please note: While this is exactly what was going through my head, I do have a flair for the overly dramatic. Please keep this in mind as you read.
All,
Today is my birthday. I'd like to think that there is at least one day a year that we can tell everyone just how we feel, without people judging, hating, disagreeing or looking down on us. Maybe that's what a birthday should be, instead of an excuse to party, get drunk and take the day off. Using similar words, we could also call it a "sick day." Just replace "party" with "sleep" and "get drunk" with "Take lots of meds."
"So I walked upon high. And I stopped within the edge, to see my world below... and I laughed at myself while the tears rolled down, 'cause it's the world I have known..."
I linked a youtube video on my facebook page. This is often how I feel every day as I watch the world work. People on the light rail. Friends and family. Relationships I've set in motion, and ones I've stopped. People's reactions to me and the world around them. Politics. Philosophy. Economics. Humanity.
It brings me to tears daily. Watching violence in the world, among people. Watching politics brawl it out over minutia, like "saving the economy" and gay marriage. The whole while the Pedagogy tries to cram a particular political ideal down the throats of the college bound and politicians vie for constituency through populism and misdirected fiscal oppression of groups the "public" views as bad.
To the Christians that might get upset at the idea of gay marriage:
Who are you to execute the will of God on your fellow human beings? Right or wrong, it is, and was never for you to decide. Let them come before St. Peter for judgment.
In the same context - To the liberals and conservatives: Is it not ironic, that your own modern politics seeks the same thing? To impose their version of morality on the whole of society?
Our society is enveloped in the idea of imposing our notions of right and wrong on our neighbors. Some have even come to believe that it's not possible to be politically free, without doing so. We've forgotten the difference between freedom from and freedom to. We've lost the core of what makes a right "inalienable."
Every action we take, is an exchange. We debate and trade criticisms we ourselves, do not see. We speak and exchange ideas, and good will. We trade goods, and exchange what we can produce, for that we cannot. We exchange our masculine traits for the feminine ones we do not possess. We burn fuel or catch wind to spin a turbine, and exchange heat or force into energy. The essence of all of nature relies on exchanges. Even microorganisms - Mitochondria allows the lungs to exchange CO2 for O2.
Yet as I see the world attempt to force these transactions between existents, as I see people forced to do business with others, forced to pay sums for nothing, forced to continue when they've said "no more, I'm done" I can't help but feel pained. As I watch Christians attempt to impose their ideology on the homosexual. As Liberals and Conservatives alike attempt to impose their morality on one another's politics. As a thief imposes his will upon a victim to get a paycheck.
"One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."
He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.""
These are the things that bring tears to my eyes. The core of what depression I experience. This is the world I have known. In many ways, I wish to no longer be a part of it - Yet I cannot simply turn and walk away, the action of suicide it's self, being immoral and contradictory as I cannot value anything if I'm dead. Plus, there's so much good in this world, at times, I can't help feeling anything but gratitude, for every single moment of my stupid little life.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
from Facebook.
A Franklin quote, to identify...
"Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman."
Unfortunately, at this juncture in my life, an exceedingly large percentage of women still wholly exist and define themselves through beauty, having not yet come to grips with the diminution inevitably caused by age. Ergo, the link. "If I tear you open wide, take a look inside are you pretty? Can I get inside your mind, see what i can find, are you pretty? So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only... pretty on the outside."
Another Ben Franklin Quote on older women...
"Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable."
Read: Older women are far more pleasant to talk to.
Last one:
"Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement."
Read: This is the paper bag effect, as quoted on June 25, 1745, by Benjamin Franklin... And you all think we're so innovative and new with our ideas, two hundred years later.
Am I saying the "less than attractive" women are better? No. I'm just saying that for the most part, the VAST majority of women my age put so much into their own appearance (that most don't even realize) that they have spent little to no time developing the intellectual faculties that would make a relationship enjoyable.
Ergo, they attract assholes who don't give a damn about anything beyond the way they look... - "Yeah brah. I hit that." And having spent so much time riding on the influence their own aesthetics achieve (both through employment benefits and social ones), they never discover what a real relationship could be, and only understand what relationships have been. It isn't until much later, when their physical beauty begins to wane, that many realize what a real relationship could be - Right about the time their husbands tell them they're fat and are only still married because of their kids (but are likely cheating on them with their hot secretary at work.) But don't get me wrong. Men are shallow too, I just lack the perspective, as that's not really my bag.
I know what makes me unattractive to most women in my age group. The word is Machismo. My current stance on the issue: if women want something that will hump an ottoman to show it's dominance, go buy a dog.
"Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman."
Unfortunately, at this juncture in my life, an exceedingly large percentage of women still wholly exist and define themselves through beauty, having not yet come to grips with the diminution inevitably caused by age. Ergo, the link. "If I tear you open wide, take a look inside are you pretty? Can I get inside your mind, see what i can find, are you pretty? So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only... pretty on the outside."
Another Ben Franklin Quote on older women...
"Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable."
Read: Older women are far more pleasant to talk to.
Last one:
"Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement."
Read: This is the paper bag effect, as quoted on June 25, 1745, by Benjamin Franklin... And you all think we're so innovative and new with our ideas, two hundred years later.
Am I saying the "less than attractive" women are better? No. I'm just saying that for the most part, the VAST majority of women my age put so much into their own appearance (that most don't even realize) that they have spent little to no time developing the intellectual faculties that would make a relationship enjoyable.
Ergo, they attract assholes who don't give a damn about anything beyond the way they look... - "Yeah brah. I hit that." And having spent so much time riding on the influence their own aesthetics achieve (both through employment benefits and social ones), they never discover what a real relationship could be, and only understand what relationships have been. It isn't until much later, when their physical beauty begins to wane, that many realize what a real relationship could be - Right about the time their husbands tell them they're fat and are only still married because of their kids (but are likely cheating on them with their hot secretary at work.) But don't get me wrong. Men are shallow too, I just lack the perspective, as that's not really my bag.
I know what makes me unattractive to most women in my age group. The word is Machismo. My current stance on the issue: if women want something that will hump an ottoman to show it's dominance, go buy a dog.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A conversation between me and my brother.
Me: ... Thanks dude.
My Brother: No Problemo.
Me: Question, does gratitude in this context carry any more or less weight than it would if it was spoken?
My brother: Wall of text warning...
Me: In truth, I already know what you'll say, and I already understand it. I'm just trying to imply that there's something else in the background. But please, wall of text me.
My brother: What more is there in the background? The nature of our relationship carries with it an understanding that, usually, implies gratitude.
Me: Never in my life have I had a relationship wherein the implication of that nature was so obvious that I KNEW, beyond a shadow of a doubt that gratitude was there. Not with you, not with Dad, not with a woman or anyone else in this world. I've come close with two people, you and one other. I've spoken before of my mild Misogyny. It's because I don't believe that women are capable of understanding on that level. In fact, I wonder if ANYONE is so similar to myself, male or female, that a bond of that nature is possible.
So, I'll admit... I compromise. A life barren and devoid of social contact would be far worse in my eyes, than one of empty but present relationships.
In truth, I've yet to find a fulfilling personal relationship with much of anyone, beyond perhaps you and Jonathan. But even that's on the border.
Dad thinks my expectations are too high... I'm starting to agree.
My brother: I know, and that is one of the things that causes a rift in our relationship which impedes upon the level of understanding necessary to truly understand emotions implied within a relationship like that. - In reference to what I said a few lines ago, by the way.
Me: What? My desire to have a personal relationship, even if it's empty, or knowledge of gratitude without explicit statement?
My brother: I mean specifically in our relationship.
Me: well right, you realize though, that you're asking for the same thing religion does?
My brother: Nah. For example, what I mean in regards to us, is that your desire for social contact, even if it is mostly empty is not something I desire, and can only relate to on the minor level of understanding the degree of loneliness associated with strict guidelines as to whom I'm willing to associate and make a connection.
It's a pretty fundamental difference between our values regarding ourselves and humanity which impedes on the level of connection and understanding with which words are often unnecessary.
Me: So, I guess I'm just left wondering why I hold such a value in social interaction. Well, I mean I know... but...
My brother: It's not that it is less of a value to me than it is to you, I'm just unwilling to compromise my standards in regards to who I consider a friend no matter how painful and lonely it might get.
Me: Doesn't it ever make you feel horrible though?
My brother: Sure, but it makes me feel worse to hang out with people with whom I share little to no connection, and with whom I'm forced to be someone I'm not to try and force a connection that's not there.
Me: Then I'm wondering why I feel better when I'm hanging out with people I'm not really connected with... thought often times I don't. I just think I have a hard time coping with the loneliness.
My brother: Possibly, and I don't blame you. It sucks ass.
Me: I think that "sucks ass" is where I stop and go... "well why not? Maybe there's something there I'm missing?"
My brother: Maybe, and if it makes you happy to hang out with people, even if you don't share any connection at all, then go for it.
Me: It does and it doesn't. In the end I'm still alone. It's really just a bandaid. Covers the problem for the time being, but it doesn't really solve anything.
A lot of people are at a state of perpetual human contact, and never really realize their relationships are probably pretty empty. They maintain a "high" of sorts for a very long time and never really have a relationship that's significant enough to fill the entire void. I think I realize that's what I'm looking for, but the knowledge of such a lack is killing me.
My brother: The knowledge that most people subsist on that shallowness, and never really go any further?
Me: No, the knowledge that I want a real relationship, that the rest are mostly shallow and that I feel like shit without one.
My drive to diagnose and resolve is what drives me nuts. As a corollary, this is why I like House.
My brother: I wish I could be of more help to you, aside from just telling you to stick to your guns.
Me: That's probably the best advice you could give, really.
The problem I have, is that I need to accept the fact that not everything is "Diagnose and resolve."
My brother: That's pretty much what it is, really. However "resolve" is sometimes your acceptance that no further action is possible.
Me: That's the hard part.
Spontaneous conversation we have. It's pretty awesome. Still working on resolving that issue... though perhaps, there's nothing else for me to do right now.
My Brother: No Problemo.
Me: Question, does gratitude in this context carry any more or less weight than it would if it was spoken?
My brother: Wall of text warning...
Me: In truth, I already know what you'll say, and I already understand it. I'm just trying to imply that there's something else in the background. But please, wall of text me.
My brother: What more is there in the background? The nature of our relationship carries with it an understanding that, usually, implies gratitude.
Me: Never in my life have I had a relationship wherein the implication of that nature was so obvious that I KNEW, beyond a shadow of a doubt that gratitude was there. Not with you, not with Dad, not with a woman or anyone else in this world. I've come close with two people, you and one other. I've spoken before of my mild Misogyny. It's because I don't believe that women are capable of understanding on that level. In fact, I wonder if ANYONE is so similar to myself, male or female, that a bond of that nature is possible.
So, I'll admit... I compromise. A life barren and devoid of social contact would be far worse in my eyes, than one of empty but present relationships.
In truth, I've yet to find a fulfilling personal relationship with much of anyone, beyond perhaps you and Jonathan. But even that's on the border.
Dad thinks my expectations are too high... I'm starting to agree.
My brother: I know, and that is one of the things that causes a rift in our relationship which impedes upon the level of understanding necessary to truly understand emotions implied within a relationship like that. - In reference to what I said a few lines ago, by the way.
Me: What? My desire to have a personal relationship, even if it's empty, or knowledge of gratitude without explicit statement?
My brother: I mean specifically in our relationship.
Me: well right, you realize though, that you're asking for the same thing religion does?
My brother: Nah. For example, what I mean in regards to us, is that your desire for social contact, even if it is mostly empty is not something I desire, and can only relate to on the minor level of understanding the degree of loneliness associated with strict guidelines as to whom I'm willing to associate and make a connection.
It's a pretty fundamental difference between our values regarding ourselves and humanity which impedes on the level of connection and understanding with which words are often unnecessary.
Me: So, I guess I'm just left wondering why I hold such a value in social interaction. Well, I mean I know... but...
My brother: It's not that it is less of a value to me than it is to you, I'm just unwilling to compromise my standards in regards to who I consider a friend no matter how painful and lonely it might get.
Me: Doesn't it ever make you feel horrible though?
My brother: Sure, but it makes me feel worse to hang out with people with whom I share little to no connection, and with whom I'm forced to be someone I'm not to try and force a connection that's not there.
Me: Then I'm wondering why I feel better when I'm hanging out with people I'm not really connected with... thought often times I don't. I just think I have a hard time coping with the loneliness.
My brother: Possibly, and I don't blame you. It sucks ass.
Me: I think that "sucks ass" is where I stop and go... "well why not? Maybe there's something there I'm missing?"
My brother: Maybe, and if it makes you happy to hang out with people, even if you don't share any connection at all, then go for it.
Me: It does and it doesn't. In the end I'm still alone. It's really just a bandaid. Covers the problem for the time being, but it doesn't really solve anything.
A lot of people are at a state of perpetual human contact, and never really realize their relationships are probably pretty empty. They maintain a "high" of sorts for a very long time and never really have a relationship that's significant enough to fill the entire void. I think I realize that's what I'm looking for, but the knowledge of such a lack is killing me.
My brother: The knowledge that most people subsist on that shallowness, and never really go any further?
Me: No, the knowledge that I want a real relationship, that the rest are mostly shallow and that I feel like shit without one.
My drive to diagnose and resolve is what drives me nuts. As a corollary, this is why I like House.
My brother: I wish I could be of more help to you, aside from just telling you to stick to your guns.
Me: That's probably the best advice you could give, really.
The problem I have, is that I need to accept the fact that not everything is "Diagnose and resolve."
My brother: That's pretty much what it is, really. However "resolve" is sometimes your acceptance that no further action is possible.
Me: That's the hard part.
Spontaneous conversation we have. It's pretty awesome. Still working on resolving that issue... though perhaps, there's nothing else for me to do right now.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
So Beautiful... So Evil.
I should preface this post.
The fact is, I shouldn’t even write this, because it may very well be fuel for a terrible fire. The tragedy I’m about to write about, isn’t a result of love, or even associated with it. Perhaps I’ll change the title before I post it.
What I want to reference starts at 1:12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs6qBZtMGgQ
This whole blog post should be started off with that excerpt from a recent episode of House MD.
A few months back, I met a girl at the Olive Garden. My brother worked with her, she seemed awesome. She was one of the few girls that actually seemed interested in the conversations my brother and I have and had her own viewpoint she threw in! Add to this all she was everything I would want in a girl, physically and mentally. Beautiful hazel eyes, gorgeous hair, incredible ass, inquisitive, and unafraid of change or challenge. She seemed willing to learn, willing to be introspective… I thought. Obviously with this kind of title and stage set, it’s not a happy blog post, but one I should make for myself, and to explain a situation.
I asked this girl out, hoping to figure out more about her, see who she is and find out if she was genuine. We dated and I had a blast. We laughed and seemed to hit it off very well, that night, I told her we should do it again some time. I went home and wrote, for the first time in a LONG time. I looked forward to the next time I would see her, that following Wednesday. We set up a second date. Had another awesome dinner, then hung out at a place she called the “903” saw some deer that walked right past the car… It was fantastic. I sent her a text one day a week after, and didn’t get a response. Felt kind of down and upset. I thought things were going so well. I was doing everything I could to be amazing. Come to find out the next day, she got into a very bad car accident. We texted while she was home ridden, but couldn’t go out very much, and couldn’t even work. I did what I could to hang around, even just meeting up at her house to hang out while she smoked. We were talking one night and said she really missed having these ice cream sandwiches she talked about. I jumped in my car, ironically, knowing that she probably said something for a reason, but I wanted to deliver. I felt bad for her situation and I thought it would brighten her spirits. I didn’t say anything immediately after she said she had a hankering for ice cream, and followed up with a text later that said “You might be surprised at what you find outside your front door.” I felt great after I did it, and after the responses she gave, I felt like I had given her a smile. It’s all I needed to know.
We started seeing each other regularly and time went by. I asked her what she was doing for New Years around that time, and she said she wasn’t sure. I invited her to Travis’ place and said maybe we should just go party hopping since we had a few invites around town. I wasn’t going to press but I was hoping. The week of new years came around, and she had decided to come to Travis’ place with me, though with the tentative plan of being open to going other places too. That night, we headed out to Travis’ place and she started drinking a little bit. I was going to stay sober that night, figured I’d drive anyway and I didn’t want to start my new year with a hangover. That night she started dancing, and a few other guys started dancing with her. I felt like I should try as well. (I’d emphasize the word try.) Time passed that night and a LOT of guys were talking to her. I blew it off, knowing she was a beautiful girl around a bunch of single guys at a house party. Then something odd happened. She kissed a guy and gave him her number. Again… I mostly blew it off but it still struck a chord. Granted we weren’t “exclusive” or whatever, but she had come at my request, and I felt pretty betrayed. I asked her about it later, and she told me the guy force himself on her… it became the subject of debate and upset between us, but every time we had a debate like this, we’d talk things over and I didn’t let it bother me. The subtext here, is that she could have easily pushed this guy away… but didn’t…
My brother and I used to hit buffalo wild wings every Tuesday, and on my way out one night (after 1 too many beers) I noticed her car in the parking lot, so I turned around and went to say hi. We talked for a while, and I went on my merry way. She hung around, said she was going to show her friend’s boyfriend the cologne/perfume she was selling to make some cash on the side, and was going to give him a ride home. So I took off and headed home. As I pulled into my parking space, I decided I wanted a beer at home, and turned around to go pick it up from the liquor store down the street. As I drove down Wadsworth about 5 minutes later, I looked over at Buffalo Wild Wings, and noticed her car still sitting in the parking lot, with the light on and two people leaning close. I reacted without thinking (and thanks to alcohol) and whirled around into the parking lot as the guy was getting out of her car, and she was starting to drive off. I pulled up close as she was turning out of the parking lot and gave her a half-confused and half angry look. I had no idea what to think, and the only thing going through my head was that she wasn’t giving me the whole story. She sent me a text and asked what the look was for. I told her, she got pissed and thought I was stalking her. I wanted to tell her to get over herself, but being a little too drunk and weepy, I just let emotion take over. I called upset and half in tears thinking I’d been screwed over and led on. She told me she wasn’t going to talk to me then, and ended the call. The next day, having returned to my senses, I figured it was over. Her birthday was the next weekend, and I wanted to do something awesome for her, but figured that was out the door.
I tried to keep in touch. The Saturday after her birthday party, I went on to do my usual routine, and got a text at about 9:15pm. The text was from this girl, telling me where her party was, and when it started, but was addressed to “everybody.” I figured it was a mass text, but the funny thing was… I got it at 9:15, not 9:00, when the text said her party started. So I sent a text back that said I’d be there later that night. Got back an “I don’t really care.” I went by the party and hung out with a few friends we both knew, didn’t say much to her, didn’t want to get in the way of this party she was having and figured she was still upset, but I had an invite so I figured I should show.
I left that night, just saying bye. We met up one Sunday and talked over coffee. It became a regular trend. As the school season started, she was still unemployed and we started to car pool on Tuesdays and Thursdays. She needed a ride to class, since I started work at the same time she started class. We talked about some of the incidents past, like the Buffalo Wild Wings thing, and she said she was upset because she thought I was stalking her. There were points I wanted to tell her to get over herself but I kept it to myself. I kept writing to her, as I had in the past (she has a notebook full of about 15-20 pages worth of letters and poems I wrote) but the letters started to change, as I kept pouring my heart out and never got much of anything back. She had told me about her ex, and that she still wasn’t over him and I thought to myself, well… so I’ve been pouring this out all for nothing? Again, it didn’t bother me. I figured I’d just hang on the sidelines. Let her get over the situation.
We always had a blast when we hung out together. We got giggly and silly just being around each other and no matter how pissed either of us could be, we always smiled when we were around one another, even if we were in the middle of an argument. She texted me one day while I was at work, really excited because she had gotten an interview at Old Chicago. I was really excited for her. That day, we went down to Subway before class, after I got off work. I met her at the Tivoli, as was often the norm. When I sat down with her, she asked me, “have you ever met someone so perfect you can’t help but think they’re lying to you?” I looked at her, smiled and said yes. She went on to explain that she had done some low-end background search through some website on her phone. I was curious, concerned it wasn’t me, but dropped the subject. She brought it back up. I finally asked her who it was, and she said she wouldn’t tell me, but it “definitely isn’t you.” Guesses on how I felt?
The letters I wrote got worse after that. She always told me she wanted the truth and wasn’t afraid of it, so I wrote the truth. I wrote how I felt and that I loved her, but I was feeling like I had been manipulated and frustrated. She got her job, and I wrote about my frustrations, every time I told her that all I wanted was something from her, on par with what I had given. She always responded saying she was saddened by the letters, and wanted to be left alone. So, that’s what I’ve done since.
There you have the story from the heart. But… that’s not what this was. Prior to asking this girl out, I had told myself that I wanted to make a foray into the world of emotionalism that I had left a long time ago. I wanted to go back and see what I missed. Well my project is now complete, and I write to extrapolate on my research. That’s right. Research. The thing is, I left behind a way of thinking. I used to be guided only by my heart and did nothing but react to the world around me. Now I follow my mind, and shape the world around me. I see how the world reacts to me, and how I work with the world. I stopped letting my spirit be so malleable and easily changed by the world and others around me, and I shaped myself and started analyzing the way I shape the world around me. My research was two fold. To discover what I may have left behind (which, by the way, I’ve found) and to read more into the nature of this girl’s mind, and how it relates to actions and behavior I’ve seen in others.
The entire time we were in contact, she “played a game” (for lack of a better word.) It was all some gigantic ruse for control and manipulation, as well as getting to know someone. I played the fool and followed the part to see if she was actually intending on attempting to use me for her own emotional satisfaction. There were a great many points during our “relationship” (if you could call it that) where she would try to blow me off, without making me think I was being blown off. I’d ask her out some night and she’d tell me she couldn’t because she had to stay in and study, or cite family reasons. We’d meet up later during the week and I’d find out through the course of our conversation, that she went to a movie with one of her friends. That’s just a small example of the daily dodging she did. She did it because she likely didn’t actually want to be around me, but didn’t want me to just disappear. She wanted me to feel something for her, and be around whenever she felt like it, gone when she didn’t… her own emotional satisfaction.
The best of all, were the baited text messages I’d receive. The best example of this was the text about her birthday party. She said she never sent it, yet I certainly received it. If it was a mass text, I would have received it when she sent it out to her friends (one of which I know) long before 9pm that night. I got it 15 minutes AFTER 9, when her party was dead and only a few people showed up. She said she didn’t send it, and showed her phone but frankly…. How else could I have received it? Magic? Another example would be recently after she told me she wanted to be left alone. She texted me about two weeks later, and said it was “imperative that we talk.” I told her I was free the next day, but she wasn’t. I told her to drop me a line when she was free. Think I heard back after that? Her entire purpose in sending me a text, was to see if I’d respond to her, see if she still had someone that would be around if she wanted them to. In so far as I can tell at this point, she’s found someone she’s interested in, so I haven’t heard anything from her since.
I could go into useless theories about what she seemed to want in a relationship (which, by the way was borderline abuse) but they don’t serve much purpose. The bigger interest for me, was this game she thought she had to play, and how she interacted with people. I simply gave her what she said she wanted, and she walked away. The truly strange thing, was that she presumed people would always put up the same façade she did, or that their intents were malevolent. Given her history, I could easily see where that kind of behavior came from. Yet, I still can’t get past the fact that, when given what she attempted to draw from someone, she walked away. Her only goal was to actually draw what she wanted out of someone, instead of it being given willingly. Her separation from her ex (as she described it) is a wonderful example. She had what she wanted, and tried to push it away for the sake of drawing it back.
What she expressed, acted and conveyed was that she wanted control and to be herself, but in truth, she wanted to BE controlled, in a manner of speaking. “Controlled” is perhaps a bad word to use to explain the situation (though on a deep, fundamental basis, that’s what it is.) It’s better explained as pursuit, or challenge. She wanted someone who would walk away from the game she played, so she could go after them. Someone she had to work to attain the affection and attention of. I say control, because really… that’s what she ultimately gave, by looking for a relationship in that context.
On a whole, what I’ve discovered is again, two fold. First is this game that some women play. It’s done to attempt to discover more about the person they’re interested in, or that is interested in them. An attempt at poking for strengths and weaknesses, socially. A good example would be the “necessity” test, which attempts to solicit a response from a guy to allude to their need or desire for a woman in a subvert way. There’s also consistency tests, that attempt to prove statements that a guy has made about what he’s done or who he is. The other purpose of this game is for the sake of “fun” and what seems to be an outward method of “Sparking” the fire of a relationship, or “drawing” it out of someone. Like a halfway meditated game to try and feel something with another person. The biggest irony about this little game, is that… it doesn’t really work for much of anything. Often times the analysis made by woman (and men) that participate in this game is wholly false. The people who play the game well are trying to attract another, and end up putting on a huge façade for the sake of that attraction, ultimately conveying a false image about themselves (which they likely aren’t comfortable with in the first place.) The end result is falling in love with someone who, in all actuality, isn’t the kind of person that “works well” with you, or that you actually want to spend a lot of time with. The opposite is also true, becoming someone you really aren’t for the sake of finding someone you think you want. Entering into the situation with truth and honesty about yourself ultimately alienates you from the game.
The second discovery, is the cat-like behavior I’ve seen. Cats often run from direct attention and love, unless they’re conditioned differently. The best way to obtain attention from a cat, is to ignore it or give it reason for curiosity or challenge, and the cat comes running to try and get your attention. Cats want to “earn” the affection they get. (This is an analogy to the behavior I saw before, and I may believe, the reason for the analogy between cats and some women.) Now obviously not all women operate in this manner, and I certainly don’t want to give B. F. Skinner too much credit (since I disagree with him on many fundamental levels, and advocate for free will) but some people are “conditioned” differently, others just realize exactly what they want, and make no facades about it. I will admit, I’ve met few women who truly act without the facade, and without the games. (And have been attracted to most every woman that has.)
At the end of this whole situation, I’m not sure whether or not I should feel pity for this person, or whether or not it’s just a phase of development. She has a great personality in many ways, a great sense of what life should be, but throws it all away to fear and her desire to follow someone, instead of making something of herself, and finding someone she has to fight to gain the attention she seeks. I also kind of feel bad about defaulting on who I am for the sake of this research project, but at the same time, I’m glad having learned what I did. I told her once she taught me so much. What she doesn’t realize, is that it isn’t “taught” in a pedagogical sense of the word, but more from an observational sense. What I learned from her, I learned in how she acted. Even when she got upset at me, she told me everything about who she is and why she reacted that way.
Someone once told me that she may be a great date in about 5 years. For this girl’s sake, I hope they’re right.
So, there you have the story of the last four months of my life. Glad to have learned what I did, and glad to be getting back to myself.
The fact is, I shouldn’t even write this, because it may very well be fuel for a terrible fire. The tragedy I’m about to write about, isn’t a result of love, or even associated with it. Perhaps I’ll change the title before I post it.
What I want to reference starts at 1:12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs6qBZtMGgQ
This whole blog post should be started off with that excerpt from a recent episode of House MD.
A few months back, I met a girl at the Olive Garden. My brother worked with her, she seemed awesome. She was one of the few girls that actually seemed interested in the conversations my brother and I have and had her own viewpoint she threw in! Add to this all she was everything I would want in a girl, physically and mentally. Beautiful hazel eyes, gorgeous hair, incredible ass, inquisitive, and unafraid of change or challenge. She seemed willing to learn, willing to be introspective… I thought. Obviously with this kind of title and stage set, it’s not a happy blog post, but one I should make for myself, and to explain a situation.
I asked this girl out, hoping to figure out more about her, see who she is and find out if she was genuine. We dated and I had a blast. We laughed and seemed to hit it off very well, that night, I told her we should do it again some time. I went home and wrote, for the first time in a LONG time. I looked forward to the next time I would see her, that following Wednesday. We set up a second date. Had another awesome dinner, then hung out at a place she called the “903” saw some deer that walked right past the car… It was fantastic. I sent her a text one day a week after, and didn’t get a response. Felt kind of down and upset. I thought things were going so well. I was doing everything I could to be amazing. Come to find out the next day, she got into a very bad car accident. We texted while she was home ridden, but couldn’t go out very much, and couldn’t even work. I did what I could to hang around, even just meeting up at her house to hang out while she smoked. We were talking one night and said she really missed having these ice cream sandwiches she talked about. I jumped in my car, ironically, knowing that she probably said something for a reason, but I wanted to deliver. I felt bad for her situation and I thought it would brighten her spirits. I didn’t say anything immediately after she said she had a hankering for ice cream, and followed up with a text later that said “You might be surprised at what you find outside your front door.” I felt great after I did it, and after the responses she gave, I felt like I had given her a smile. It’s all I needed to know.
We started seeing each other regularly and time went by. I asked her what she was doing for New Years around that time, and she said she wasn’t sure. I invited her to Travis’ place and said maybe we should just go party hopping since we had a few invites around town. I wasn’t going to press but I was hoping. The week of new years came around, and she had decided to come to Travis’ place with me, though with the tentative plan of being open to going other places too. That night, we headed out to Travis’ place and she started drinking a little bit. I was going to stay sober that night, figured I’d drive anyway and I didn’t want to start my new year with a hangover. That night she started dancing, and a few other guys started dancing with her. I felt like I should try as well. (I’d emphasize the word try.) Time passed that night and a LOT of guys were talking to her. I blew it off, knowing she was a beautiful girl around a bunch of single guys at a house party. Then something odd happened. She kissed a guy and gave him her number. Again… I mostly blew it off but it still struck a chord. Granted we weren’t “exclusive” or whatever, but she had come at my request, and I felt pretty betrayed. I asked her about it later, and she told me the guy force himself on her… it became the subject of debate and upset between us, but every time we had a debate like this, we’d talk things over and I didn’t let it bother me. The subtext here, is that she could have easily pushed this guy away… but didn’t…
My brother and I used to hit buffalo wild wings every Tuesday, and on my way out one night (after 1 too many beers) I noticed her car in the parking lot, so I turned around and went to say hi. We talked for a while, and I went on my merry way. She hung around, said she was going to show her friend’s boyfriend the cologne/perfume she was selling to make some cash on the side, and was going to give him a ride home. So I took off and headed home. As I pulled into my parking space, I decided I wanted a beer at home, and turned around to go pick it up from the liquor store down the street. As I drove down Wadsworth about 5 minutes later, I looked over at Buffalo Wild Wings, and noticed her car still sitting in the parking lot, with the light on and two people leaning close. I reacted without thinking (and thanks to alcohol) and whirled around into the parking lot as the guy was getting out of her car, and she was starting to drive off. I pulled up close as she was turning out of the parking lot and gave her a half-confused and half angry look. I had no idea what to think, and the only thing going through my head was that she wasn’t giving me the whole story. She sent me a text and asked what the look was for. I told her, she got pissed and thought I was stalking her. I wanted to tell her to get over herself, but being a little too drunk and weepy, I just let emotion take over. I called upset and half in tears thinking I’d been screwed over and led on. She told me she wasn’t going to talk to me then, and ended the call. The next day, having returned to my senses, I figured it was over. Her birthday was the next weekend, and I wanted to do something awesome for her, but figured that was out the door.
I tried to keep in touch. The Saturday after her birthday party, I went on to do my usual routine, and got a text at about 9:15pm. The text was from this girl, telling me where her party was, and when it started, but was addressed to “everybody.” I figured it was a mass text, but the funny thing was… I got it at 9:15, not 9:00, when the text said her party started. So I sent a text back that said I’d be there later that night. Got back an “I don’t really care.” I went by the party and hung out with a few friends we both knew, didn’t say much to her, didn’t want to get in the way of this party she was having and figured she was still upset, but I had an invite so I figured I should show.
I left that night, just saying bye. We met up one Sunday and talked over coffee. It became a regular trend. As the school season started, she was still unemployed and we started to car pool on Tuesdays and Thursdays. She needed a ride to class, since I started work at the same time she started class. We talked about some of the incidents past, like the Buffalo Wild Wings thing, and she said she was upset because she thought I was stalking her. There were points I wanted to tell her to get over herself but I kept it to myself. I kept writing to her, as I had in the past (she has a notebook full of about 15-20 pages worth of letters and poems I wrote) but the letters started to change, as I kept pouring my heart out and never got much of anything back. She had told me about her ex, and that she still wasn’t over him and I thought to myself, well… so I’ve been pouring this out all for nothing? Again, it didn’t bother me. I figured I’d just hang on the sidelines. Let her get over the situation.
We always had a blast when we hung out together. We got giggly and silly just being around each other and no matter how pissed either of us could be, we always smiled when we were around one another, even if we were in the middle of an argument. She texted me one day while I was at work, really excited because she had gotten an interview at Old Chicago. I was really excited for her. That day, we went down to Subway before class, after I got off work. I met her at the Tivoli, as was often the norm. When I sat down with her, she asked me, “have you ever met someone so perfect you can’t help but think they’re lying to you?” I looked at her, smiled and said yes. She went on to explain that she had done some low-end background search through some website on her phone. I was curious, concerned it wasn’t me, but dropped the subject. She brought it back up. I finally asked her who it was, and she said she wouldn’t tell me, but it “definitely isn’t you.” Guesses on how I felt?
The letters I wrote got worse after that. She always told me she wanted the truth and wasn’t afraid of it, so I wrote the truth. I wrote how I felt and that I loved her, but I was feeling like I had been manipulated and frustrated. She got her job, and I wrote about my frustrations, every time I told her that all I wanted was something from her, on par with what I had given. She always responded saying she was saddened by the letters, and wanted to be left alone. So, that’s what I’ve done since.
There you have the story from the heart. But… that’s not what this was. Prior to asking this girl out, I had told myself that I wanted to make a foray into the world of emotionalism that I had left a long time ago. I wanted to go back and see what I missed. Well my project is now complete, and I write to extrapolate on my research. That’s right. Research. The thing is, I left behind a way of thinking. I used to be guided only by my heart and did nothing but react to the world around me. Now I follow my mind, and shape the world around me. I see how the world reacts to me, and how I work with the world. I stopped letting my spirit be so malleable and easily changed by the world and others around me, and I shaped myself and started analyzing the way I shape the world around me. My research was two fold. To discover what I may have left behind (which, by the way, I’ve found) and to read more into the nature of this girl’s mind, and how it relates to actions and behavior I’ve seen in others.
The entire time we were in contact, she “played a game” (for lack of a better word.) It was all some gigantic ruse for control and manipulation, as well as getting to know someone. I played the fool and followed the part to see if she was actually intending on attempting to use me for her own emotional satisfaction. There were a great many points during our “relationship” (if you could call it that) where she would try to blow me off, without making me think I was being blown off. I’d ask her out some night and she’d tell me she couldn’t because she had to stay in and study, or cite family reasons. We’d meet up later during the week and I’d find out through the course of our conversation, that she went to a movie with one of her friends. That’s just a small example of the daily dodging she did. She did it because she likely didn’t actually want to be around me, but didn’t want me to just disappear. She wanted me to feel something for her, and be around whenever she felt like it, gone when she didn’t… her own emotional satisfaction.
The best of all, were the baited text messages I’d receive. The best example of this was the text about her birthday party. She said she never sent it, yet I certainly received it. If it was a mass text, I would have received it when she sent it out to her friends (one of which I know) long before 9pm that night. I got it 15 minutes AFTER 9, when her party was dead and only a few people showed up. She said she didn’t send it, and showed her phone but frankly…. How else could I have received it? Magic? Another example would be recently after she told me she wanted to be left alone. She texted me about two weeks later, and said it was “imperative that we talk.” I told her I was free the next day, but she wasn’t. I told her to drop me a line when she was free. Think I heard back after that? Her entire purpose in sending me a text, was to see if I’d respond to her, see if she still had someone that would be around if she wanted them to. In so far as I can tell at this point, she’s found someone she’s interested in, so I haven’t heard anything from her since.
I could go into useless theories about what she seemed to want in a relationship (which, by the way was borderline abuse) but they don’t serve much purpose. The bigger interest for me, was this game she thought she had to play, and how she interacted with people. I simply gave her what she said she wanted, and she walked away. The truly strange thing, was that she presumed people would always put up the same façade she did, or that their intents were malevolent. Given her history, I could easily see where that kind of behavior came from. Yet, I still can’t get past the fact that, when given what she attempted to draw from someone, she walked away. Her only goal was to actually draw what she wanted out of someone, instead of it being given willingly. Her separation from her ex (as she described it) is a wonderful example. She had what she wanted, and tried to push it away for the sake of drawing it back.
What she expressed, acted and conveyed was that she wanted control and to be herself, but in truth, she wanted to BE controlled, in a manner of speaking. “Controlled” is perhaps a bad word to use to explain the situation (though on a deep, fundamental basis, that’s what it is.) It’s better explained as pursuit, or challenge. She wanted someone who would walk away from the game she played, so she could go after them. Someone she had to work to attain the affection and attention of. I say control, because really… that’s what she ultimately gave, by looking for a relationship in that context.
On a whole, what I’ve discovered is again, two fold. First is this game that some women play. It’s done to attempt to discover more about the person they’re interested in, or that is interested in them. An attempt at poking for strengths and weaknesses, socially. A good example would be the “necessity” test, which attempts to solicit a response from a guy to allude to their need or desire for a woman in a subvert way. There’s also consistency tests, that attempt to prove statements that a guy has made about what he’s done or who he is. The other purpose of this game is for the sake of “fun” and what seems to be an outward method of “Sparking” the fire of a relationship, or “drawing” it out of someone. Like a halfway meditated game to try and feel something with another person. The biggest irony about this little game, is that… it doesn’t really work for much of anything. Often times the analysis made by woman (and men) that participate in this game is wholly false. The people who play the game well are trying to attract another, and end up putting on a huge façade for the sake of that attraction, ultimately conveying a false image about themselves (which they likely aren’t comfortable with in the first place.) The end result is falling in love with someone who, in all actuality, isn’t the kind of person that “works well” with you, or that you actually want to spend a lot of time with. The opposite is also true, becoming someone you really aren’t for the sake of finding someone you think you want. Entering into the situation with truth and honesty about yourself ultimately alienates you from the game.
The second discovery, is the cat-like behavior I’ve seen. Cats often run from direct attention and love, unless they’re conditioned differently. The best way to obtain attention from a cat, is to ignore it or give it reason for curiosity or challenge, and the cat comes running to try and get your attention. Cats want to “earn” the affection they get. (This is an analogy to the behavior I saw before, and I may believe, the reason for the analogy between cats and some women.) Now obviously not all women operate in this manner, and I certainly don’t want to give B. F. Skinner too much credit (since I disagree with him on many fundamental levels, and advocate for free will) but some people are “conditioned” differently, others just realize exactly what they want, and make no facades about it. I will admit, I’ve met few women who truly act without the facade, and without the games. (And have been attracted to most every woman that has.)
At the end of this whole situation, I’m not sure whether or not I should feel pity for this person, or whether or not it’s just a phase of development. She has a great personality in many ways, a great sense of what life should be, but throws it all away to fear and her desire to follow someone, instead of making something of herself, and finding someone she has to fight to gain the attention she seeks. I also kind of feel bad about defaulting on who I am for the sake of this research project, but at the same time, I’m glad having learned what I did. I told her once she taught me so much. What she doesn’t realize, is that it isn’t “taught” in a pedagogical sense of the word, but more from an observational sense. What I learned from her, I learned in how she acted. Even when she got upset at me, she told me everything about who she is and why she reacted that way.
Someone once told me that she may be a great date in about 5 years. For this girl’s sake, I hope they’re right.
So, there you have the story of the last four months of my life. Glad to have learned what I did, and glad to be getting back to myself.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Markets WILL Prevail – Even if we don’t want them to.
Markets WILL Prevail – Even if we don’t want them to.
“If we once again guide the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle, our markets will recover, our economy will once again thrive and America will once again lead the world in this new century as it did in the last…” Part of President Obama’s speech on February 25, 2009 cites a principle some economists (and some history buffs) know well. What Obama is attempting reference to, is Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand.”In a current context, most understand this idea to be the notion that the government must influence the market covertly to stabilize the market through direct government intervention and monetary policy. I.e. Bail outs, tax credits, and anything else you can come up with that the government can legislate to control the market in whatever manner is necessary. The problem is that the interpretation of the principle couldn’t be further from the truth. The invisible hand is actually the hand that influences equilibrium price, created by the effects of supply and demand on the market.
A few clarifications.
Demand: Demand is pretty obvious. Demand deals specifically with the willingness of consumers to purchase a good at any given price. The higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. The lower the price, the higher the quantity demanded.
Supply: The first most common economic fallacy is the presumption that Supply is directly related to the quantity of a good in a market. IT IS NOT. “Supply” is the producer’s version of demand. It reflects the producer’s willingness to sell a particular quantity of a good at a particular price. The higher the price a good sells for, the more willing the producer is to sell. The lower the price a good sells for, the less inclined a producer is to sell.
So, supply is the willingness of a company to sell X amount of product at Y price, and demand is the willingness of a consumer to purchase X amount of a product at Y price. Where those two curves cross on a graph, is what we call “Equilibrium price.” Equilibrium Price is the point at which consumers willingness to buy matches a producers willingness to sell. Markets, by their nature, will always balance price and quantity at this equilibrium price. Why? While a producer certainly wants to sell their goods at a higher price, consumers always want to buy their goods at a lower price. Markets work on voluntary exchange, so as a consumer I may want to purchase a new Nissan GT-R for $5.00, there is no producer in their right mind that would want to sell me that car for that price. On the converse, Nissan may want to sell me that GT-R for $500,000 but no consumer in their right mind would pay that price for that car. Ultimately, consumer wants and producer wants balance themselves at an equilibrium price (that isn’t necessarily a mid-point.) This is Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand.” “When we enter into an exchange, we are only interested in our own well being, and producers are seeking their own. Both are pushed by that invisible hand to an equilibrium position.”
The thing is, it doesn’t mean that it will make everyone happy.
The effects of government control is a topic for a future date, but note the effect of rent price controls in New York City and Cairo, Egypt. Both government imposed rent ceilings caused a massive increase in demand and accordingly, the price actually INCREASED. A black market for rent subleasing came to exist, as those lessees who were lucky enough to rent an apartment maintained their lease at the ceiling price, and subsequently subleased their apartments out at a higher rate. Demand at that ceiling price was huge, but producers weren’t willing to sell as many units at that price (and so converted some to commercial property, or simply did not lease them.) This is what’s called the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The same thing happens with the illegalization of a particular good. The market doesn’t simply disappear when we make it illegal, or attempt to control price, it simply alters the supply and demand (primarily supply) and alters equilibrium price, almost always increasing it. Illegal narcotics for example, if legalized, would likely find a lower equilibrium price, as there are fewer risks for suppliers to grow, produce and market the product.
Fact is, markets will exist whether we want them to or not. Its part of human nature to trade and exchange, and voluntary exchange is the basis upon which all human beings communicate and socialize. Be it legal or illegal, controlled or uncontrolled, the market will still exist. The only difference is that we make the sale of a good at that equilibrium price black, or white. Illegal narcotics, medical procedures (abortion anyone?), all will have a market no matter how moral or immoral we think they are, and no matter how much we like or dislike that market. It will still exist no matter how much government gets involved.
Now, with a little tearing apart of our President’s speech, I have to ask… “What invisible hand are you talking about?” With a $1,000,000,000,000 price tag (Looks different when you write out all the zeros, no?), the bailouts certainly weren’t invisible. If we presume a population of 300 million US citizens, that equates to about $23,333 per person.
While a fantastic speech writer, it’s obvious to me that our current president fits the mold of what John Jay warned in the Federalist Papers #64. “Brilliant appearances often mislead as well as dazzle.” Barack Obama is a bullshitter. He clearly has no idea what he referenced in his own speech. I’d give him the credit of intellect, but if that’s the case, it would put him on an ideological par with Adolf Hitler. I think he lacks the intent and truly believes that what he is doing is right. Hitler knew it wasn’t. The more and more I hear Obama’s speeches, the more and more he sounds like a more articulate G.W. Bush.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Following my Folly.
Well, I told the world that I was done drinking. That I'd never touch alcohol again. For all intents and purposes, I was correct. I was ardent about not drinking. To a great degree, I still am and will be.
But I had the chance to hang out with two of the most awesome people on earth, and one of them started talking about beer. About how he liked certain Belgian style beers because they were a bit sweeter than most. I listened and broke out into an analysis of hops, explaining that certain hops have different characters in beer, how some hops add a citrus character and some add a more pine character. About the difference in taste created by roasting a malt for a different period of time, and the difference between an Ale and a Lager.
Once I stopped talking, he just looked at me and went... "dude, you can't quit drinking beer."
He's right. I can't. Not because I physically cannot, but because it's too much of a hobby for me.
So tonight I sit with a beer in my hand. An anomaly that shouldn't be, but is. I realized that I don't like drinking, but I love beer. Even the beer I hold is an anomaly.
I'm doing what was suggested by one of my favorite brewers in the world. - "Follow your folly."
Anomalies:
1. I'm following a slogan.
2. I've found something I both love, and hate.
3. I presumed that hell would freeze over before the beer I'm drinking was created.
So, I would like to salute New Belgium Brewery.
I am currently drinking a beer called "Ranger" made by New Belgium, the first ever of it's type created by a brewer that normally sticks to Belgian style beers yet has deviated from the norm. I always said - Whenever New Belgium does it, they do a DAMN good job of it, whatever it is. I had always said how much of a shame it is that New Belgium never made an IPA...
True to the expectation, the New Belgium Ranger IPA is worthy of the title, "Christ-like." Being a hop head, this beer is everything I wished Hoptober would have been. Mind you, Hoptober was absolutely fantastic, this is the next step of awesome, for the Hophead.
The bottle advertises the use of Cascade, Simcoe and Chinook hops. It's a similar taste to what I noticed in Hoptober, though with a bit less potency, though the fact that the only hop similarity is Cascade, it leads me to think that these are the dominant hops.
Chinook hops give the primary character found in the Stone IPA, and Cascades seem to be the primary character found in the Odell IPA (won't lie though, it could be Citra hops.) - These two beers are the personification of each respective hop. The difference? The Stone IPA is as piney as you get, and the Odell IPA has a taste comparable to Grapefruit (how's that for citrus character?)
What New Belgium has done here, is created a new line in between the two poles. The Ranger IPA is as piney as it is citrusy, and the effect it carries on a trained (or likely, untrained) palate is awestriking. Many may not be able to handle the bitter, but for those daring enough... I'll finish your six pack if you don't like it.
I love beer.
But I had the chance to hang out with two of the most awesome people on earth, and one of them started talking about beer. About how he liked certain Belgian style beers because they were a bit sweeter than most. I listened and broke out into an analysis of hops, explaining that certain hops have different characters in beer, how some hops add a citrus character and some add a more pine character. About the difference in taste created by roasting a malt for a different period of time, and the difference between an Ale and a Lager.
Once I stopped talking, he just looked at me and went... "dude, you can't quit drinking beer."
He's right. I can't. Not because I physically cannot, but because it's too much of a hobby for me.
So tonight I sit with a beer in my hand. An anomaly that shouldn't be, but is. I realized that I don't like drinking, but I love beer. Even the beer I hold is an anomaly.
I'm doing what was suggested by one of my favorite brewers in the world. - "Follow your folly."
Anomalies:
1. I'm following a slogan.
2. I've found something I both love, and hate.
3. I presumed that hell would freeze over before the beer I'm drinking was created.
So, I would like to salute New Belgium Brewery.
I am currently drinking a beer called "Ranger" made by New Belgium, the first ever of it's type created by a brewer that normally sticks to Belgian style beers yet has deviated from the norm. I always said - Whenever New Belgium does it, they do a DAMN good job of it, whatever it is. I had always said how much of a shame it is that New Belgium never made an IPA...
True to the expectation, the New Belgium Ranger IPA is worthy of the title, "Christ-like." Being a hop head, this beer is everything I wished Hoptober would have been. Mind you, Hoptober was absolutely fantastic, this is the next step of awesome, for the Hophead.
The bottle advertises the use of Cascade, Simcoe and Chinook hops. It's a similar taste to what I noticed in Hoptober, though with a bit less potency, though the fact that the only hop similarity is Cascade, it leads me to think that these are the dominant hops.
Chinook hops give the primary character found in the Stone IPA, and Cascades seem to be the primary character found in the Odell IPA (won't lie though, it could be Citra hops.) - These two beers are the personification of each respective hop. The difference? The Stone IPA is as piney as you get, and the Odell IPA has a taste comparable to Grapefruit (how's that for citrus character?)
What New Belgium has done here, is created a new line in between the two poles. The Ranger IPA is as piney as it is citrusy, and the effect it carries on a trained (or likely, untrained) palate is awestriking. Many may not be able to handle the bitter, but for those daring enough... I'll finish your six pack if you don't like it.
I love beer.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Pretzle Logic; or, Why We Use a Circle to Express the Term "Zero."
Note: Please read my previous post about Deprivation Theory and Knowledge, before reading this. It'll explain the title.
I was presented recently, with an argument that Rational thought was limited to our current context, or our perception of life and existence. I.e. We strive to make everything rational because we can only conceive of this existence.
The concept is classic Kant. We live in a phenomenal world and rationality may apply only to the world in which we perceive. The "real" or Noumenal world may have a completely different set of rules and rationality may not even function there.
I'm trying to respond to this argument as carefully as possible, to convey the proper point but...
We could all live in a yellow submarine, too. Point is, ANYTHING COULD be, beyond the context and perception of our existence. The question is whether or not we live according to the context we KNOW and the world we are in, or do we subvert all that for the sake of living according to fundamental premises that we just HOPE are correct?
Basically, zooming out too far from existence almost entirely usurps epistemology. If we're to live according to principles based on a world we can neither perceive or know, then Ethics and Morality are played deuces wild. What's to say that sacrificing human beings isn't what we're supposed to do according to this greater existence that we can't even know exists? What's to say that genocide, slavery and any number of other abhorrent atrocities aren't actually good things, according to this estranged world that we suppose MIGHT exist?
Simply put, yes, "What if this world isn't real, and rationality is bunk?" is entirely valid. But, like so many Sophist questions, it will ALWAYS be asked, and NEVER be answered... unless we can figure something through science which is... rational. By operating on premises which can neither be proven true nor false, we directly state that it is perfectly acceptable to be, not only irrational, but unethical and immoral... because our notion of morality (which is based in epistemology) could be bullshit.
Easy Version: Zooming out too far on existence to suppose that the reality we perceive may well be false is valid question to ask, but it ultimately it destroys the very essence of knowledge and morality. It means that there is no right and wrong, there is no good or bad, there is no correct or incorrect, everything is fiction. There is no knowledge, there is no definition, there is no order... all is chaos. In all that, what I'm saying is that means there is no way that we even perceive our existence, that our knowledge is all false, and there is NOTHING that is keeping this world bound together... when there actually is.
Read: EFF U GRAVITY. I'M NOT OBEYIN' UR LAWZ.
Stewie Griffi, stoned in a pot shop in Amsterdam - "I think, the only reason we die, is because we accept it as an inevitability."
I was presented recently, with an argument that Rational thought was limited to our current context, or our perception of life and existence. I.e. We strive to make everything rational because we can only conceive of this existence.
The concept is classic Kant. We live in a phenomenal world and rationality may apply only to the world in which we perceive. The "real" or Noumenal world may have a completely different set of rules and rationality may not even function there.
I'm trying to respond to this argument as carefully as possible, to convey the proper point but...
We could all live in a yellow submarine, too. Point is, ANYTHING COULD be, beyond the context and perception of our existence. The question is whether or not we live according to the context we KNOW and the world we are in, or do we subvert all that for the sake of living according to fundamental premises that we just HOPE are correct?
Basically, zooming out too far from existence almost entirely usurps epistemology. If we're to live according to principles based on a world we can neither perceive or know, then Ethics and Morality are played deuces wild. What's to say that sacrificing human beings isn't what we're supposed to do according to this greater existence that we can't even know exists? What's to say that genocide, slavery and any number of other abhorrent atrocities aren't actually good things, according to this estranged world that we suppose MIGHT exist?
Simply put, yes, "What if this world isn't real, and rationality is bunk?" is entirely valid. But, like so many Sophist questions, it will ALWAYS be asked, and NEVER be answered... unless we can figure something through science which is... rational. By operating on premises which can neither be proven true nor false, we directly state that it is perfectly acceptable to be, not only irrational, but unethical and immoral... because our notion of morality (which is based in epistemology) could be bullshit.
Easy Version: Zooming out too far on existence to suppose that the reality we perceive may well be false is valid question to ask, but it ultimately it destroys the very essence of knowledge and morality. It means that there is no right and wrong, there is no good or bad, there is no correct or incorrect, everything is fiction. There is no knowledge, there is no definition, there is no order... all is chaos. In all that, what I'm saying is that means there is no way that we even perceive our existence, that our knowledge is all false, and there is NOTHING that is keeping this world bound together... when there actually is.
Read: EFF U GRAVITY. I'M NOT OBEYIN' UR LAWZ.
Stewie Griffi, stoned in a pot shop in Amsterdam - "I think, the only reason we die, is because we accept it as an inevitability."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)