A Manifesto (Long and Dry)
This rant, it bubbles forth from me like some kind of indignant geyser, exploding after a due amount of pressure and time. But, seriously, fuck it, I'm not letting this dwell inside of me, and this is a place I have created for me to write as I see fit, and, sometimes, it'll be funny, sometimes: anger will permeate, soaking, into my words. I am rather unfond of several qualities of people, and I plan on addressing as many as I can before I don't feel like it, anymore.
Let me preface this with a small factoid in regards to my life: so, a few weeks ago, a friend of mine that I considered close decided that the thing to do was to throw everything about our friendship into question, and, in the end, declare her unwillingness to be good friends with me, anymore. A small bit of information to provide some relevant scope and context to this whole thing; granted, not all, but some. In case you were wondering about the source of my steam: yeah, that, too.
Okay, firstly: seriously, fuck that people don't ever feel satisified letting things go in any sort of uncontrolled or natural progression of events. Somewhere along the line, this race of ours has forgotten how to construct their lives around, I don't know, satisfaction or accomplishment. Is it some sort of secret trend that I have been left privy out of that the fashionable thing to do is manufacture my life around appearances and societal etiquettes, that it somehow, now, actually reflects any sort of spiritual or moral code of ethics to tiptoe around the truth and coat everything with a pink, sugary frosting? (I would really like to hammer home that I am not specifically targetting or referring to the aforementioned friend, but that she happens to just display a recent example of such behaviours.) Somehow, I'm supposed to care that only on alternating Mondays, from sunrise to noon, it's kosher to, then, state things matter-of-factly or with a reasonable amount of assurance of one's own knowledge of any given subject.
It seems to me that it has become the accepted and expected behaviour for people to suppress all forms and facets of their personal capabilities and expertises in lieu of exercising authority on anything. It's one thing to be arrogant and claim to unjustifiably be in the know of something you're not, but it's another to have a long history of being, in general, intelligent about something, or doing something smartly, and to have that portfolio of past events to point at and use as reason to exert a semblance of confidence over. Does anyone seriously not notice why self-esteem is at an all-time low in the world (look around you, look at the commercials for depression medication and all the children sitting in counselor's offices throughout the day). It's because we teach each other that it's impolite to ever act like you actually are equally intelligent as someone in some particular field, and actions in contradiction to such an ethos are profoundly offensive. The generation before mine was so tired of being belittled and looked down upon by the traditionalist powers that be that they raised their children to squelch any desire to ever (oh, you know) act competent.
The current pop-culture is stupid. The current movies being pumped out are stupid. The television we watch on a day-to-day basis is stupid. The cleverest comedy in America is that which points at the stupidity and recreates it in an ironic sense. The books we produce are poorly written and mentally bankrupt. The culture we propogate is terrible and disgusting. Anything produced at a level vaguely equal to that of someone who would have been considered of moderate intelligence fifty years ago is touted as the most brain-wracking piece of work ever to grace the human race, for that month or three. We don't hold ourselves up to the standards that have already been proven and set down, in the past, at all. We've decided that the thing to do is to, instead, take three steps back and reinvent the wheel, when it comes to intellectual life. I'm not basing this on personal, subjective vendettas, I'm simply looking back at the library of works that have been created in the history of our existence, and holding it up to today's examples.
But, to wittle this back down to a more specific and less broad arena, I will get back to human, social interaction. What it boils down to is that we have been brought up in a generation that is expected to exchange the stupidest of dialogue, day-in and day-out. So, any exception to this kind of conversation is viewed as an oddity or estranged abberation, examined closely and scrutinized in a fine light. Maybe these are all timeless truths, and because what survived from the past -- which was what was, by nature, worth surviving -- seems so much better than today's tripe, but it pisses me off.
To shift gears, slightly: I expect an amount of respect from those who I treat with respect, is what it all boils down to, at the barest of cores. This respect is reflected in an assumed quality of being, even despite apparent faults and glaring flaws; in other words, I have problems and you have problems, but I will treat you as a shining example of this race, and I hope you will do the same for me. What I do not appreciate is the hypocritical activity of expecting the absolute perfect from me, and then wanting me to forgive all your issues. If you think it's not obvious when you think more highly of someone else somehow, then you're dead fucking wrong, too. Anyone with a smidgeon of perceptiveness can gauge how high the light on one's self is.
The problem all comes into play when one considers the previous paragraph, and factors in the two preceding that one; to clarify, I expect equal treatment, but our society is intrinsically stupid, so the prevalent concept of equality is treating everyone as if they're dumb. Also, everyone automatically suppresses their intelligence, insofar that the normally visible amount of stupidity seems . . . Normal. I don't treat people like they're stupid, I never have; I listen to more points of view than is imaginable, honestly. I'm not trying to say I'm some great Saint (because, fuck the Vatican), but I am simply stating what is true. It is an easy thing to show that I do listen because I can remember almost everything of what I hear, even if hazy with specific details here and there. Thus, it can not be proven that I don't listen, when I have the memories I do have, and it is requisite for me to have these memories by listening: a simple logical proof. But, this, of course, is somehow bad, that I treat people with intelligence.
What has degenerated due to the predominant trend in stupid-speech is the individual's ability to communicate ideas with clarity. Nobody knows how to say what they want to say or express their thoughts, because it is not their role in society to do so; however, it is base human nature to wish to share one's self with everybody around them, moreso for those they deem as loved or cared-for ones. So, when I give someone the benefit of the doubt about their intelligence and speak on a heightened level, their automatic response is to want to and strive to communicate their ideas in the exact same likeness, but they have lost a grasp on the coherent methods how. The result is that I continue to not just do the stupid thing and assume I understand, instead pressing the individual to refine their words and better convey their meaning. It is about at this point that I am labeled as arrogant or overbearing or somesuch, because I have chosen to try and understand more deeply and completely an idea that has been spoken to me, since, you know, I question it -- remember, it is stupid to never question, so that is the popular practice accustomed. In the end, I just wanted to hear more and learn more about the person, and I am given a pile of shit for it.
Here is the part where I inevitably do sound arrogant: I find it hard to believe that it is my fault that so many people are incomprehensible when I have interpreted so much complex literature and philosophy, psychology and theology, and similar subjects, in the course of my lifetime. You can try and say that maybe I don't comprehend everything I've applied my attention to, but . . . I don't know, that'd be a retarded argument, considering the independent observations and insights I've made about them. And it's not as though I go around with a t-shirt that says, "I Read and Understand Faulkner and C. S. Lewis," so I don't feel as though this is arrogance. You see, by definition, arrogance is the act of claiming to be able to do something that one is truly not able to do; the commonly forgotten key to that definition is the act of claiming. If I never claim to be capable of doing so, then I can't be arrogant -- of course, one could argue that I just did do that very thing: make a claim on my comprehension of in-depth ideas. I suppose continual deliberation on this matter will innately end up circular, and I can only conclude this paragraph by stating that I think what matters is that I absolutely do not believe I am the only person alive of having such capacity for interpretation.
To further try and say what I am trying to say (that I'm not a prick), I will also assure you that I do not repulse from -- and, in fact, expect -- the identical behaviour I display. Moreover, to be elaborate here: if someone were to press me for understanding of my ideas, then I would not deliver upon such a deliverer of such treatment any malcontent. I do not think I am the most comprehensible man alive, nor do I think that I am infallible or omniscience. Rather, I try and always establish that all I ask for from interaction is a complete and full discussion, not some half-assed, pathetic jungle of half-finished and cut-off statements. Too many times have I witnessed and been subject to conversation that boiled down to incomplete ideas being bounced off of impenetrable walls, such talking coming down to nobody listening and just talking, exchanging what may seem to be interesting dialogue (but, in reality, is dull recitation of preformulated sentences). Also, I do accept the fact that not everybody always wants to engage in intellectual conversation, and I would say that I do a consistent job of switching modes when need be. After all, I can stand around and spew brain-trash and comic relief with the best of them.
I'm not getting anywhere with this, and it's beginning to frustrate me, which is going on top of my pre-existing frustration about non-communication. Hah, I'm a raging contradiction, aren't I? Sure, I'm saying things, but -- these things -- they are not what I desire to convey. Ugh, I think I'm going to just conclude this with one more paragraph.
People aren't stupid. People need to stop acting stupid. People need to stop being indecisive about what they expect and adhere to a constant and reliable standard of reactions. It is only when people, as a whole, act stupid that they become stupid. But, the stupidity is only surface-deep, it's just a matter of how deep the surface is before one comes across the actual mind. It is not rude to seek clarification on obfuscated points, and it is not implausible that one would expect the same, in return. (Heh, I just made the typo of "retard" where I intended to type "return," I think I'm dwelling too much on the conceptual state of stupidity.) There is nothing wrong with being confident in what you think; at least, when said thoughts are justifiable with viable and, preferably, communicable support. Do not play stupid, it is stupid to do so, because that game only makes you stupid, in the long run. An intensely frightening thought, to me, is a vastly intelligent person slowly dwindling away into a confused and contradictory fool, because he got lost in the game of stupidity that human society has become. It's a horrible thought, and all too common.
Be Strong,
Be Wrong.
Let me preface this with a small factoid in regards to my life: so, a few weeks ago, a friend of mine that I considered close decided that the thing to do was to throw everything about our friendship into question, and, in the end, declare her unwillingness to be good friends with me, anymore. A small bit of information to provide some relevant scope and context to this whole thing; granted, not all, but some. In case you were wondering about the source of my steam: yeah, that, too.
Okay, firstly: seriously, fuck that people don't ever feel satisified letting things go in any sort of uncontrolled or natural progression of events. Somewhere along the line, this race of ours has forgotten how to construct their lives around, I don't know, satisfaction or accomplishment. Is it some sort of secret trend that I have been left privy out of that the fashionable thing to do is manufacture my life around appearances and societal etiquettes, that it somehow, now, actually reflects any sort of spiritual or moral code of ethics to tiptoe around the truth and coat everything with a pink, sugary frosting? (I would really like to hammer home that I am not specifically targetting or referring to the aforementioned friend, but that she happens to just display a recent example of such behaviours.) Somehow, I'm supposed to care that only on alternating Mondays, from sunrise to noon, it's kosher to, then, state things matter-of-factly or with a reasonable amount of assurance of one's own knowledge of any given subject.
It seems to me that it has become the accepted and expected behaviour for people to suppress all forms and facets of their personal capabilities and expertises in lieu of exercising authority on anything. It's one thing to be arrogant and claim to unjustifiably be in the know of something you're not, but it's another to have a long history of being, in general, intelligent about something, or doing something smartly, and to have that portfolio of past events to point at and use as reason to exert a semblance of confidence over. Does anyone seriously not notice why self-esteem is at an all-time low in the world (look around you, look at the commercials for depression medication and all the children sitting in counselor's offices throughout the day). It's because we teach each other that it's impolite to ever act like you actually are equally intelligent as someone in some particular field, and actions in contradiction to such an ethos are profoundly offensive. The generation before mine was so tired of being belittled and looked down upon by the traditionalist powers that be that they raised their children to squelch any desire to ever (oh, you know) act competent.
The current pop-culture is stupid. The current movies being pumped out are stupid. The television we watch on a day-to-day basis is stupid. The cleverest comedy in America is that which points at the stupidity and recreates it in an ironic sense. The books we produce are poorly written and mentally bankrupt. The culture we propogate is terrible and disgusting. Anything produced at a level vaguely equal to that of someone who would have been considered of moderate intelligence fifty years ago is touted as the most brain-wracking piece of work ever to grace the human race, for that month or three. We don't hold ourselves up to the standards that have already been proven and set down, in the past, at all. We've decided that the thing to do is to, instead, take three steps back and reinvent the wheel, when it comes to intellectual life. I'm not basing this on personal, subjective vendettas, I'm simply looking back at the library of works that have been created in the history of our existence, and holding it up to today's examples.
But, to wittle this back down to a more specific and less broad arena, I will get back to human, social interaction. What it boils down to is that we have been brought up in a generation that is expected to exchange the stupidest of dialogue, day-in and day-out. So, any exception to this kind of conversation is viewed as an oddity or estranged abberation, examined closely and scrutinized in a fine light. Maybe these are all timeless truths, and because what survived from the past -- which was what was, by nature, worth surviving -- seems so much better than today's tripe, but it pisses me off.
To shift gears, slightly: I expect an amount of respect from those who I treat with respect, is what it all boils down to, at the barest of cores. This respect is reflected in an assumed quality of being, even despite apparent faults and glaring flaws; in other words, I have problems and you have problems, but I will treat you as a shining example of this race, and I hope you will do the same for me. What I do not appreciate is the hypocritical activity of expecting the absolute perfect from me, and then wanting me to forgive all your issues. If you think it's not obvious when you think more highly of someone else somehow, then you're dead fucking wrong, too. Anyone with a smidgeon of perceptiveness can gauge how high the light on one's self is.
The problem all comes into play when one considers the previous paragraph, and factors in the two preceding that one; to clarify, I expect equal treatment, but our society is intrinsically stupid, so the prevalent concept of equality is treating everyone as if they're dumb. Also, everyone automatically suppresses their intelligence, insofar that the normally visible amount of stupidity seems . . . Normal. I don't treat people like they're stupid, I never have; I listen to more points of view than is imaginable, honestly. I'm not trying to say I'm some great Saint (because, fuck the Vatican), but I am simply stating what is true. It is an easy thing to show that I do listen because I can remember almost everything of what I hear, even if hazy with specific details here and there. Thus, it can not be proven that I don't listen, when I have the memories I do have, and it is requisite for me to have these memories by listening: a simple logical proof. But, this, of course, is somehow bad, that I treat people with intelligence.
What has degenerated due to the predominant trend in stupid-speech is the individual's ability to communicate ideas with clarity. Nobody knows how to say what they want to say or express their thoughts, because it is not their role in society to do so; however, it is base human nature to wish to share one's self with everybody around them, moreso for those they deem as loved or cared-for ones. So, when I give someone the benefit of the doubt about their intelligence and speak on a heightened level, their automatic response is to want to and strive to communicate their ideas in the exact same likeness, but they have lost a grasp on the coherent methods how. The result is that I continue to not just do the stupid thing and assume I understand, instead pressing the individual to refine their words and better convey their meaning. It is about at this point that I am labeled as arrogant or overbearing or somesuch, because I have chosen to try and understand more deeply and completely an idea that has been spoken to me, since, you know, I question it -- remember, it is stupid to never question, so that is the popular practice accustomed. In the end, I just wanted to hear more and learn more about the person, and I am given a pile of shit for it.
Here is the part where I inevitably do sound arrogant: I find it hard to believe that it is my fault that so many people are incomprehensible when I have interpreted so much complex literature and philosophy, psychology and theology, and similar subjects, in the course of my lifetime. You can try and say that maybe I don't comprehend everything I've applied my attention to, but . . . I don't know, that'd be a retarded argument, considering the independent observations and insights I've made about them. And it's not as though I go around with a t-shirt that says, "I Read and Understand Faulkner and C. S. Lewis," so I don't feel as though this is arrogance. You see, by definition, arrogance is the act of claiming to be able to do something that one is truly not able to do; the commonly forgotten key to that definition is the act of claiming. If I never claim to be capable of doing so, then I can't be arrogant -- of course, one could argue that I just did do that very thing: make a claim on my comprehension of in-depth ideas. I suppose continual deliberation on this matter will innately end up circular, and I can only conclude this paragraph by stating that I think what matters is that I absolutely do not believe I am the only person alive of having such capacity for interpretation.
To further try and say what I am trying to say (that I'm not a prick), I will also assure you that I do not repulse from -- and, in fact, expect -- the identical behaviour I display. Moreover, to be elaborate here: if someone were to press me for understanding of my ideas, then I would not deliver upon such a deliverer of such treatment any malcontent. I do not think I am the most comprehensible man alive, nor do I think that I am infallible or omniscience. Rather, I try and always establish that all I ask for from interaction is a complete and full discussion, not some half-assed, pathetic jungle of half-finished and cut-off statements. Too many times have I witnessed and been subject to conversation that boiled down to incomplete ideas being bounced off of impenetrable walls, such talking coming down to nobody listening and just talking, exchanging what may seem to be interesting dialogue (but, in reality, is dull recitation of preformulated sentences). Also, I do accept the fact that not everybody always wants to engage in intellectual conversation, and I would say that I do a consistent job of switching modes when need be. After all, I can stand around and spew brain-trash and comic relief with the best of them.
I'm not getting anywhere with this, and it's beginning to frustrate me, which is going on top of my pre-existing frustration about non-communication. Hah, I'm a raging contradiction, aren't I? Sure, I'm saying things, but -- these things -- they are not what I desire to convey. Ugh, I think I'm going to just conclude this with one more paragraph.
People aren't stupid. People need to stop acting stupid. People need to stop being indecisive about what they expect and adhere to a constant and reliable standard of reactions. It is only when people, as a whole, act stupid that they become stupid. But, the stupidity is only surface-deep, it's just a matter of how deep the surface is before one comes across the actual mind. It is not rude to seek clarification on obfuscated points, and it is not implausible that one would expect the same, in return. (Heh, I just made the typo of "retard" where I intended to type "return," I think I'm dwelling too much on the conceptual state of stupidity.) There is nothing wrong with being confident in what you think; at least, when said thoughts are justifiable with viable and, preferably, communicable support. Do not play stupid, it is stupid to do so, because that game only makes you stupid, in the long run. An intensely frightening thought, to me, is a vastly intelligent person slowly dwindling away into a confused and contradictory fool, because he got lost in the game of stupidity that human society has become. It's a horrible thought, and all too common.
Be Strong,
Be Wrong.
posted by c.Jay Wrong at
1:01 AM
<< Home