It is a known fact that diversity is the prerequisite for the successful evolution. I've just realized Facebook not only makes your life boring - it is also the obstacle of our cultural evolution. Same time it makes us stupid. Everyone read this far has also (hopefully) noticed the sarcastic exaggeration this text will contain... ;)
But think about it... When everyone is either single, married or complicated, is this diversity or just plain stupid? What about the arts and entertainment then? The default values for a default human is music, books, movies, TV-shows and games. Does this mean it is all there is? Or should I be worried of a hint that TV-shows are art nowadays? What a crap. I've also given a lot of partially filled lines and the blank spaces to fill in - as if I was an idiot. "My hobbies: _____ ". Duh! And everyone is truly trying to be innovative and original in those blank spaces. This is like trying to be creative in an empty, locked coffin. What is it? Trying to be something really unique to stand out from the grey mass. So the monsters wouldn't devour you after good nights kiss and mom closing the nursery door for the night. Afraid to be alone in the dark with oneself?
But on the top of it all. There stands two things. Education and job. As if I were not a fully acknowledged human being without those. They're the main things also in the info field. Is that all there is to make an individual? I'm not even going to go to details about what my family should look like. Yea, "should" because if the options are there for millions of users and they don't fit in me, am I the abnormal one? Should I do something to get myself into the same mould? And if I don't feel good fitting into them, do I need the medics or do the rest of you need to wake up?
Yea, I know. I'm overreacting here. But have you ever really thought how flat, boring and "default" you look like with the millions of others? And have you ever really thought, filling those blank spaces, if they are all that there is in you?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
I'm afraid to win the climate discussion...
As long as we have the discussion about the climate change and protection on environment, we can look at ourselves as an outsiders, objects on the battlefield of opinions. When the discussion ends, we need to face ourselves, not as objects, but as responsible subjects of the same game.
I've started to think it would be better to leave the whole subject and watch the human kind driving headlong to the concrete wall. First of all because we humans do not learn anything if it doesn't hurt. And the more it hurts, the more likely we learn. Secondly, I don't want to be held responsible to break anyones identity and the image of self.
Deep inside us, we all know that dumping the chemicals, toxics and factories' combustion gases to nature, will hurt it and eventually ourselves. But to admit that will cause a lot of anxiety and forces us to give up of parts of ourselves. Anxiety, because one has to face the fact that we really do cause this by ourselves. And giving up of the illusion of omnipotency. To admit we're not the picture of our god - the godlike creature that is made to rule, but just the one bit of the great organism called nature.
It seems to be easier to die begging forgiveness and blaming our leaders than to live carrying one's responsibility and facing the consequences of one's actions. When I'm discussing with people about the climate change or environment, I do not want to win the argumentation because I know the anxiety, emptiness and feelings of weakness it causes to admit what we're doing. I do not want to cause that to my dear fellows. It is probably better to let time pass by and be there to help when the first cries of help are heard.
We truly have not diverged from nature. When we talk about the nature's wellbeing, we're talking about the things very deep inside us. And as long as there's discussion, there's possibility for forgiveness. When the talks end, there are only those who act.
Pelkään, että voitan ilmastoväittelyn...
Niin kauan kuin meillä on ilmastokeskustelua tai keskustelua luonnonsuojelusta, voimme tarkastella itseämme ja omaa toimintaamme ikäänkuin ulkopuolisena faktojen ja fiktion ristiaallokossa. Vähän kuin uhrina. Kun keskustelu loppuu, joudumme peilin eteen. Tekijänä ja vastuullisena.
Olen alkanut uskoa, että väittelyä ei kannata voittaa. Ensinnäkin siksi, että en usko ihmisen oppivan mitään, ellei opetus satu. Mitä enemmän se sattuu, sen todennäköiseti oppimista tapahtuu. Ja toiseksi siksi, että en halua joutua vastuuseen kenenkään minuuden ja itseyden eheyden rikkomisesta.
Jokainen meistä tietää sisimmässään, että myrkkyjen, kemikaalien, tehdassavujen ja muun roinan työntäminen luontoon vahingoittaa luontoa ja sitä kautta itseämme. Mutta sen asian myöntäminen aiheuttaa suurta ahdistusta ja luopumista. Ahdistusta siksi, että joutuu alkaa tarkkailla itseään tekijänä, eikä harhaanjohdettuna lampaana. Luopumista kaikkivoipaisuuden illuusiosta, että ei olekaan jumalansa kuva ja sen kaltainen hallitsemaan luotu olento, vaan ainoastaan yksi organismi kokonaisuudessa nimeltä luonto.
Näyttää olevan helpompaa kuolla anoen anteeksiantoa ja syyttäessään johtajiaan kuin elää kantaen vastuunsa ja myöntäessään virheensä. Kun keskustelen ihmisten kanssa vaikkapa jätevesiasetuksesta tao ilmastonmuutoksesta, en halua tuota keskustelua voittaa, sillä tunnen itsessäni sen voimattomuuden, ahdistuksen ja tyhjyyden, jota oman itsensä näkeminen tekijänä aiheuttaa. En halua sitä lähimmäisilleni, koska en voi antaa mitään tilalle. On varmasti armeliaampaa antaa ajan kulua ja olla vastaamassa hätähuutoon sitten, kun sen aika tulee.
Emme todellakaan ole päässeet tätä kauemmas luonnosta. Kun keskustelemme ilmastosta ja luonnosta, keskustelemme itse asiassa niistä oman itsen syvimmistä asioista. Ja niin kauan kuin on keskustelua, on anteeksiantoa. Kun puhe loppuu, on vain tekijöitä.
Olen alkanut uskoa, että väittelyä ei kannata voittaa. Ensinnäkin siksi, että en usko ihmisen oppivan mitään, ellei opetus satu. Mitä enemmän se sattuu, sen todennäköiseti oppimista tapahtuu. Ja toiseksi siksi, että en halua joutua vastuuseen kenenkään minuuden ja itseyden eheyden rikkomisesta.
Jokainen meistä tietää sisimmässään, että myrkkyjen, kemikaalien, tehdassavujen ja muun roinan työntäminen luontoon vahingoittaa luontoa ja sitä kautta itseämme. Mutta sen asian myöntäminen aiheuttaa suurta ahdistusta ja luopumista. Ahdistusta siksi, että joutuu alkaa tarkkailla itseään tekijänä, eikä harhaanjohdettuna lampaana. Luopumista kaikkivoipaisuuden illuusiosta, että ei olekaan jumalansa kuva ja sen kaltainen hallitsemaan luotu olento, vaan ainoastaan yksi organismi kokonaisuudessa nimeltä luonto.
Näyttää olevan helpompaa kuolla anoen anteeksiantoa ja syyttäessään johtajiaan kuin elää kantaen vastuunsa ja myöntäessään virheensä. Kun keskustelen ihmisten kanssa vaikkapa jätevesiasetuksesta tao ilmastonmuutoksesta, en halua tuota keskustelua voittaa, sillä tunnen itsessäni sen voimattomuuden, ahdistuksen ja tyhjyyden, jota oman itsensä näkeminen tekijänä aiheuttaa. En halua sitä lähimmäisilleni, koska en voi antaa mitään tilalle. On varmasti armeliaampaa antaa ajan kulua ja olla vastaamassa hätähuutoon sitten, kun sen aika tulee.
Emme todellakaan ole päässeet tätä kauemmas luonnosta. Kun keskustelemme ilmastosta ja luonnosta, keskustelemme itse asiassa niistä oman itsen syvimmistä asioista. Ja niin kauan kuin on keskustelua, on anteeksiantoa. Kun puhe loppuu, on vain tekijöitä.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Large societies produce disconnected citizens?
I've been following the discussion about integrating the municipalities in Finland with conflicting thoughts. I am yet unable to make my mind about the issue - if it is a good thing or a bad thing. There's a lot of contradictory thoughts in my mind about it and here's one I came aware of after listening to author and doctor Edward Tick and his work with post traumatic stress disorder with veterans. This sounds like a long shot but actually it is quite close to our function as society.
Dr. Tick was seeing the PTSD as a incomplete initiation. Where our soldiers has been sent to serve our society abroad, facing their fears and deaths, facing the experience that is very disintegrating experience to one's mind or soul if you wish. After serving their time, they come back but no one takes care of integration back to society. Some of them wounded, everyone sacrificed a lot, they fly few hours on a plane and BOOM! Back to normal life - at least that's what is expected of them. All of them also has to deal with the discussion in society if we even should've been in that war anyway. Others evaluating the value of their sacrifice which on a personal level is huge.
Well is this so? Go to school, get a car, get drunk and go to army. Is this the initiation to our society? Initiation on both levels - individual and social - is at best finding the place in society, to serve society as a full member of it and to get personal fulfillment and sense of belonging in doing that (Mircea Eliade, Rites and symbols of initiation). I agree totally with that description. But looking our societies today makes me wonder if the initiation is left solely on the individual level and on personal responsibility. The initiation to be a acknowledged member of one's social environment is not self-evident anymore. This leads to wrong kind of behavior - even criminal - and leaves automatically some people outside our society.
From initiation point of view, going towards bigger social clusters leads to alienation and social exclusion. When we have problems already with this amount of centralized governance and with large and loose societies, why make this worse?
Note: This is not a tragedy only on an individual level. It is also money related issue, but even more a security and wellbeing related issue on social level.
Dr. Tick was seeing the PTSD as a incomplete initiation. Where our soldiers has been sent to serve our society abroad, facing their fears and deaths, facing the experience that is very disintegrating experience to one's mind or soul if you wish. After serving their time, they come back but no one takes care of integration back to society. Some of them wounded, everyone sacrificed a lot, they fly few hours on a plane and BOOM! Back to normal life - at least that's what is expected of them. All of them also has to deal with the discussion in society if we even should've been in that war anyway. Others evaluating the value of their sacrifice which on a personal level is huge.
Well is this so? Go to school, get a car, get drunk and go to army. Is this the initiation to our society? Initiation on both levels - individual and social - is at best finding the place in society, to serve society as a full member of it and to get personal fulfillment and sense of belonging in doing that (Mircea Eliade, Rites and symbols of initiation). I agree totally with that description. But looking our societies today makes me wonder if the initiation is left solely on the individual level and on personal responsibility. The initiation to be a acknowledged member of one's social environment is not self-evident anymore. This leads to wrong kind of behavior - even criminal - and leaves automatically some people outside our society.
From initiation point of view, going towards bigger social clusters leads to alienation and social exclusion. When we have problems already with this amount of centralized governance and with large and loose societies, why make this worse?
Note: This is not a tragedy only on an individual level. It is also money related issue, but even more a security and wellbeing related issue on social level.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)