Fractured Fables
October 31, 2007
When we were young, we heard the story of The Tortoise and the Hare. It was a fable that aimed to teach us never to give up and/or that slow and steady wins the race. Just a good-hearted tale of the underdog coming out on top because he believed in himself.
What a load of crap.
In what race would any mate sit down merely because he was in the lead? Or sleep for that matter! The only reason the tortoise won is because the hare slacked off! If anything, the moral of this fable should be ’slackers lose’ or something along those lines. But to take it a step further and say that ’slow and steady’ wins the race is to take it a bit far. The tortoise did not win because he was slow and steady, but merely because he was persistent. He took advantage of the hare’s laziness and pulled out a win. So do not sugar coat the fractured fable with catchy slogans as ’slow and steady’ when it is clearly inaccurate. Something like ‘persistence pays’ would work better, but what it really came down to is the fact that the hare was an arrogant character who slacked off because he thought he could win the race easily. After all, had the hare maintained his momentum, he would have beat the tortoise no matter how much persistence the slow tart had!
Tags: The Tortoise and the Hare, fable, underdog, persistence
Gone Baby, Gone
October 29, 2007
So I went to the movies last night because my roommate felt like going. We decided on watching Gone Baby, Gone as it was at a convenient time, and it looked good enough to hold our interest so late at night. I enjoyed the movie because of the twists and how everything comes together in the end, but I did not care for the ending. Without going into how it ended, I will just say that I am sure people would be divided on it.
Now the ending in general sucked because it just sort of like ended; it was like someone closed the door and rolled the credits. Sure, the main issues were resolved and as such the movie could end, but the issue that was raised as a result of the main story line was not really dealt with. And it is that issue that I have a hard time letting go. I do not like how the movie ended, but I know what the flip side of the coin is. My contention merely is that we must sacrifice for the greater good.
Everyone abides by morals and contends that we should be ‘good’ people by doing or not doing something. It is only when our moral judgments are not always the best choices that the ’sacrifice’ comes in to play. Do we do what we know is the ‘right thing’ to do? Or do we do the opposite (or nothing at all) for the greater good? And what if a child is involved?
I’m not a parent so I cannot even fathom the decisions that they must go through or even the pain of losing a child. I cannot say with certainty what I would do in a given situation, but I do love children and would like to think that I would do anything to see them have better.
Gone Baby, Gone was a great movie. I would recommend anyone seeing it. I just did not like the ending. But I am but one person. My roommate liked the ending just fine.
Tags: greater good, morals, right thing
Memory
October 19, 2007
When I took Psych 101 in college, my teacher asked us to try and recall the earliest memory of our childhood and write it down. Everyone came in with papers of around the ages of 3-5 being their earliest memory. She then went on to tell us that our memories are not always accurate; even though we think we know where we were even when a detrimental event such as Pearl Harbor occurred, that it is just our mind playing tricks on us. A year later the Twin Towers were hit.
I remember exactly what I was doing, what I did that day, and how I reacted to the event. I remember it as clear as yesterday, but yet I should not trust my memory? Why? What proof do you actually have that my memory is not my memory? That it is not accurate? How can we make such a statement in Psychology?
I was abused when I was younger. My sister too. But we both have different memories of our childhood. She insists it was not as bad as I claim and that some of my claims are false (claims that we had all made growing up and proven, but now as adults she disavows). It hurts that my flesh and blood chooses our adopted parents over me, but she has the need for a family that I long ago buried. My friends have become my family. It is often said that there are some friends that are closer than a brother so why not? I love my sister dearly and would do anything for her and her kids, do not get me wrong on that, but I just cannot see why we can’t have what we had as kids. We were not close knit, but we had each other’s backs above all else.
It took me a little while in my younger years to get over the abuse and the rejection of my adopted family (more specifically my mother), but I did. I do not hold a grudge on anyone (I can forgive, but I do refuse to forget because I do believe in the old adage that those who do not remember their past are doomed to repeat it), but I do refuse to let them back in my life. Such would be stupid on my part and to my detriment. I love my sister and will always let her in, but that family I will not.
Memories. Good or bad, how is it that we all seem to have different recollections of the same even?
Tags: abused, family, friends, Memories
PostSecret
October 17, 2007
There is a site called postsecret.com where you can go and read postcards of secrets that people have sent. Some are deep, others are light, and still others are just real. You find that you are not alon and that the world is so much smaller than it is…
They come from all over and still have the same themes: wanting to belong, wanting to be loved, just wanting, apologies, lies, deception, freedom, and any and every other emotion that makes us more human. It is through reading these ’secrets’ that others feel empowered. Whether it be because they connect with what is being said or their emotions are sparked, these secrets make them want to do/be better.
Such is the premise of good will towards men; the feeling we get around the holiday times where we want to be a little kinder to our fellow man. But why is it that we need a reason to be kinder? Why do we need some sort of motivating factor? So many things are great because they appeal to our emotions and tug on our heart strings, but why do we need that pull to be a better person?
There was a movie a while back called Pay It Forward where this kid came up with the idea to do something nice for someone and only asked that they do something nice for someone else as repayment. The concept was known as ‘paying it forward.’ Idealistic as it was, it showed how one good deed could affect so many, but it is really not far off base. If we started out with the intent to do that which we are motivated to do emotionally, who is to say that the world could not be a little kinder?
We all gather around in times of trouble and sympathisize with our fellow man. Why can’t we help them on any other day? Our treasures on earth will not follow us unto death so what stops us from aiding others? It is the selfishness of man that intrigues me, but it is the motivation of man that is far more interesting.
Tags: empowered, good will, sympathisize, motivation
Prove God
October 12, 2007
What the Church says: God is. He just exists. There is no ‘definition’ of who He is and His ways are supreme, righteous, and warrant no challenges; after all, the Bible says that we should only test the Lord in our tithes and offerings. God does not have to prove himself and, in fact, to do so would be to challenge who he is. That being said, the Bible itself proves the existence of the Almighty anyways so why question who He is?
What they say: How can you use the book that publishes God as the creator to justify who he is; moreover, how do you prove ‘God’ with… ‘God?’ Specifically, the Bible is the one that establishes God as the Judeo-Christian entity that we have ‘accepted’ and now ‘challenge,’ but in order to validate it’s claims, the Church tells us to…look…in…it. Moreover, if I created a text that established that Muskucs exist in captivity and that for proof of their existence, I ask you to look to my writings…which first establish their existence and nature…have I not then created for you a circular logic that will only leave you at step one over and over again?
But say we accept the writings of the Bible on the character of God; not accept who He is perse, but rather what is written in the Book. How, then, are we supposed to ‘accept’ this version of God when what we see in our world totally contradicts the existence of a benevolent deity? We are supposed to accept that God is loving when children are being abused and killed daily; we are supposed to believe that God answers prayers when our mothers, fathers, and spouses die of cancer. We are supposed to accept that God exists in a world full of suffering, pain, evil, and despair. Because this book tells us. And never mind that we can’t question why or how He exists in such a state of contradiction, but that we should walk in faith. Seems all too self-fulfilling for the prophets and a cop-out for modern man.
What I say: When you were born, the hospital created a record of your birth and issued your parents a birth certificate which they used to obtain a social security card for you. When you hit adolescence and needed your driver’s permit, you had to provide these things to the DMV as proof of who you were. Did they ask you to prove who you are? Moreover, did they ask you to perform selfless acts of love to prove that you are a loving person? Or to save a child from a murderer’s hands to prove that you are merciful? Did you have to do anything more than present these papers backing up your claims of being ‘you’? Why, then, do we ask the same of the Creator? He cannot be just as we are? Are you any more of a John or Jane because you can perform spectacular sights on command; more specifically, are you defined by what you do rather than your inherit nature or being? Yet we as the inferior man presume to put standards on the superior God?
At the point where we grant that what the Bible teaches is accurate, we grant that God is. Why? Because that is what the Bible says. We cannot take parts of the Bible to suit our needs; it’s an all or nothing deal. Why? Because the Bible says! At the very minute that we concede the Bible, we concede God; or rather, the idea of God– not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God. Meaning, we concede that there is a God so the next step is to determine who He is. Moreover, is he the God represented in the Bible, the Qur’an, or the Torah? Yet how can we question who he is when we have already accepted that the Bible is an accurate source? It would seem the paradox that we created would lead to the assumption that there is no answer and/or that God is a nice idea albeit an illusion.
But the ‘logic’ does not have to be so circular; we go to the Bible and hear about this ‘God’, we read further to find out more about this ‘God’ and who He is, we become to know ‘God.’ The issues in the whole ‘prove God in relation to the world’ debate, is not whether or not he exists (that is for another debate), but that his existence contradicts what is written about him and the way the world operates. However, they also use this contradiction to then say that He does not exist which doesn’t work because in order to initially say that He contradicts the nature of the world, we have to concede who he is! It’s like law: you cannot establish motive after the fact.
Semantics and logic aside, we should not be challenging the ‘who’ of God, but rather the ‘why.’ Why do we deserve such a merciful Father? Why is He always in our court? Why does he love me uniquely? It would seem that in light of the world, why is God still the unchanging lover that He is?
Again, I would like to note that this is but the mere tip of the iceberg, but that it is also from my stream of consciousness alone. Til next post…
Tags: question, God, prove, Judeo-Christian
Quickie Quandry
October 11, 2007
If everything is relative, how can we find an absolute truth? And if we cannot find an absolute truth, how can we challenge an absolute maker?
Tags: relative, absolute truth
Me, Me, Me, ME!
October 10, 2007
At our core, we are ‘selfish’ but ’selfish’ takes on such a negative connotation that no one really wants to admit it. It is not that we do not care about others or have compassion for others, it is just that we are taught from a young age to take care of ourselves first. This looking out for number one mantra does not always follow us into adulthood, but the battles of it affects us in that we see that we should not be so egocentric but that we find it easier to be.
Being single is easy; you do not have to make excuses for for your feelings, actions, and priorities. I would imagine people do not want to be single forever for fear of being alone, but how ‘alone’ can someone be if they have a plethora of friends? Sure, you do not have someone to go to bed with every night or hang out with in the mornings and late evenings (often), but you could always find someone to hang out with depending on the friends you choose.
Why is it that we cannot look after number one? I have been screwed in my life many times over caring about others and trying to put them first. I set my own needs, wants, and dreams aside so that they could be happy and have what they wanted and/or needed. To my own detriment. How is this logical?
It is hard to say what is right and what is wrong in a world where relativity is the answer to everything. All that you can do is make the decision that is right for you. Everything else is just… relative.
Tags: selfish, single, relativity
