Intellectual

The True Face of Humanity: An Essay

/ andyveilleux / 1 Comment

Jean-Paul Sartre had me believing there was no human nature. He wasn’t the only one to argue that point, and maybe not  even the best, but when he spoke I believed him. I crave the complete responsibility for my own actions. There is a hitch in the plan though, that is only provided by experience. The more I live the less I believe humans are neutral morally. The more I live, the more evil I see. The evil of violence, which humans gorge on. The evil of inaction, exemplified by the lazy generation I was born into, but we are not alone. The evil in the way that love ends and how we make our most intimate friends and lovers into strangers. This also happens with family.

Loyalty is dead, or is at least left bleeding in some gutter, unattended to. We have become loyal to only our desires and personal ambitions, and not even the sort of real ambition only certain people possess. The false ambitions – that of wealth, personal “success,” and moving up some invisible and indifferent latter – also push people in strange ways.

When we eat, we seek to feast. When we get ahead, we seek to take metres instead of inches. Progress has become a clock spinning out of control, and what of morality? Nobody gives a damn about morality, because it doesn’t pay the bills. Morality is argued about in dark corners of philosophy departments, where even as we speak, it has taken a back seat to mechanical debates about logic and the obscure discussions surrounding the meaning of a solitary word.

We are not some privileged animal, despite our sophisticated brains, because we spoil and waste our talents. We possess the tools to look deeply and meaningfully at our lives and our predicaments, and we would rather use them on the inconsequential and mundane tasks that have no bearing on our being. We are the most advanced animal, well ironically the most stupid. No other creature on this planet rapes it or takes advantage of it the way that we do.

No other animal finds ways to mass murder its own species and other species with such efficiency. Our faculties have evolved, but unfortunately, our morality has not evolved at the same rate. Our moral compass is pointing north, telling us we are good human beings despite the evidence to the contrary.

Sure, you don’t recycle as much as you should, and you drive a distance you could walk in five minutes, but at least you don’t own a Hummer. And if you own a Hummer, at least you don’t fly a private jet plane. And if you own a jet plane, at least you donate to charities, and maybe you dump money into carbon off-sets for some of your travels or buy Monsanto seeds for poor Africans to become dependent on. They were already bankrupt and starving before the seeds anyways, right?

None of this is new, or hip, or popular to talk about, except the environmentalism, and even that depends on the circle of friends you keep. Humanity is just not that good to each other. They are awful in intimate situations, brutal in social settings and the worst in mob-sized dealings. There’s no cure coming, no sudden invent of a gadget that will teach people how to live better, deeper and smarter. There is nothing like the investment that gets poured into science and technology, but they care about your vehicles, new drugs they can invent new illnesses for and new ways to sell you something you don’t need.

But let’s not talk about all of that. It’s a good ol’ Saturday night and the people are dancing and drinking, and if they are not dancing and drinking, they are losers anyways. Certainly, I am a loser. I’m a loser to be spending a Saturday night reading interesting books, writing about how broken our species is and drinking a tall glass of water and reality. Charles Bukowski said what was needed was an old school jester, but even the cleverest and goofiest clown in history can not show us a shred of redemption in humanity. We are in a funk like we have never seen before. Humans before used to break everything, but they couldn’t destroy their planet with their stupidity. We possess the most knowledge at any point in human history, and it’s only led us to innovative ways of crippling ecosystems and hearts.

So don’t tell me there is no human nature. As far as I know, history has taught us what human nature is. Easter Island is human nature. Hiroshima and Auschwitz are human nature. The Crusades are human nature. Two people sitting alone trying to figure out where they go from here after one lover has confessed to infidelity, lying and stealing, both peoples’ hearts crushing and not for the first time, are human nature. The way we stab the earth with needles and explosives for minerals and oil to build more luxury SUVs, and over-priced trinkets, just to see all that money climb up some greedy tree where the top one per cent collect their lop-sided earnings, is human nature.

Human nature is not a broken concept, and I’m surprised the goblins, trolls and devils of our world do not being funding Arts programs seriously. They should be teaching people there is no human nature – although Sartre wouldn’t make sense to teach, because he preaches responsibility and free will – because there are always those in control of money, and those without it, and that’s all based on human nature. Humans idolize and place people on pedestals. Having your face on television, your voice on the radio and your general idiot nature yapping all the time, makes women and men want to bed you without having met you. Don’t tell me we are not broken, or that there’s some sunny dawn coming to chase away all the bad times. We are the bad times. We are humans being natural, and we are broken beyond repair.

Of all evil and of all love

/ andyveilleux / 2 Comments

Nietzsche had a way with words that was not usual for a philosopher. Sure, he could often be difficult to read due to how abstract some of his writing was, but occasionally he delivered a gem. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he wrote:

"Of all evil I deem you capable: for that reason I want from you the good. 

Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who think themselves good merely because they have lame paws!"

I love this passage, and have since first hearing it. It represents something about all of us that many of us will never say. We are capable of any evil – we could steal, we could cheat on our lovers, we could destroy someone's reputation, we could kill, we can do any number of awful, evil things – and this is why Nietzsche is asking for the good.

This line has incredible importance in relationships, and in love in general. We are all capable of doing horrendous things, which are out-of-character (although that is an interesting debate – what is "out" of character? Are we not several characters at different times?), but we are also capable of treating someone well and with proper love. However, people are not good to each other, which makes this line all the more significant.

Should we except people to be good to us? Judging by the masses, no we should not, but we do expect our lovers to be good to us. The statistics are not in favour of us behaving well to our lovers.

 

In a 2007 MSNBC article, which surveyed over 70,000 North Americans, only 25% of respondents had never sexually fantasized about others, sent sexual emails to others, webcammed, given oral sex, had sex with others or romantically kissed someone else.

Half of respondents said they had been the 'other' man or woman in an affair, and almost half of the respondents had cheated at some point, with 22 per cent having cheated on their current partner. Nearly forty per cent of cheaters cheated with their children in the same home. So, don't talk to me about how good people are to their lovers, because if half of the people surveyed – and this survey is by no means an anomaly with its statistics – and yout ake into account that many people will not feel comfortable admitting to cheating, even digitally, then people are probably not as good to their partners as you are leading yourself to believe.

So where do we go from here? Well, the current dating landscape is often referred to as a post-dating world, and certainly my good friends over at The Gaggle have their fingers on the pulse of modern "dating" (if we can even call it that these days). I don't think the idea of monogamy is dead, or maybe to go back to Nietzsche, it is dead, "but considering the state the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which [its] shadow will be shown."

To be more optimistic towards love than Nietzsche's statements about God – and perhaps show off my romantic side with love – I believe a committed monogamous union of two people is possible. Both people must realize that they are capable of great evil, but trust one another to behave in a good moral fashion. We don't have to be draconian in relationships, but there needs to be a level of trust where both people are comfortable and do not worry about their partner committing evil towards them. Is that too much to ask?

 

 
In a recent MSNBC article, which surveyed over 70,000 North Americans, only 25% of respondents had never sexually fantasized about others, sent sexual emails to others, webcammed, given oral sex, had sex with others or romantically kissed someone else.
 
In a recent MSNBC article, which surveyed over 70,000 North Americans, only 25% of respondents had never sexually fantasized about others, sent sexual emails to others, webcammed, given oral sex, had sex with others or romantically kissed someone else.
 
In a recent MSNBC article, which surveyed over 70,000 North Americans, only 25% of respondents had never sexually fantasized about others, sent sexual emails to others, webcammed, given oral sex, had sex with others or romantically kissed someone else.
 
In a recent MSNBC article, which surveyed over 70,000 North Americans, only 25% of respondents had never sexually fantasized about others, sent sexual emails to others, webcammed, given oral sex, had sex with others or romantically kissed someone else.
 
In a recent MSNBC article, which surveyed over 70,000 North Americans, only 25% of respondents had never sexually fantasized about others, sent sexual emails to others, webcammed, given oral sex, had sex with others or romantically kissed someone else.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who think themselves good merely because they have lame paws!" -Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, p.103.

hulking cyborgs of thought

/ andyveilleux / Leave a comment

Once the chains come off, the results are unpredictable. The hulking brute is loosed on the world and given freedom with no eye to caution and with no checks and balances.

The moment the last of the iron cuffs slammed and bounced on the floor, with the distinct noise of metal on concrete that is unforgettably real, is a moment that will change the world. The sheer power of the imagination and the word roars, shaking infants awake.

Every poet turns 50 degress east, bows their head and stares in an attempt to break through the veil and hide in the abyss of their sorrow. Philosophers sit in their smugness and self-importance,  a curled grin on the right side of theie mouths, believing the power to be nothing new or unique. They are wrong. They are deceived. The poets can not slip away and the philosophers will learn the hardest lessons.

There is nothing as permanent or satisfying as the proper line of words. Each statement is a shadow of a thoughts and always loses the proper meaning. Each statement becomes a bastard in the head of others, some of whom instantly accept it and others who instantly reject it. For some, the thought poisons them. A slow, creeping poison that punches a fist of rusted steel into your chest but will not rip out your heart. It misses the vitals and leaves you to rot, system going septic, and the fist stays.

A new form of cyborg is born.

living in the inbetween

/ andyveilleux / 1 Comment

Life is not made up of big moments, surrounded by the everyday. Life is the everyday and the big moments float as debris on a still lake.

They bring character, a sense of optimism for something more than just a still, lonely lake, and most of all, a possibility of something new. Nobody knows from whence the river flows, but that it flows makes a world of difference. Staring at the same water gets old, and bathing in the same water is death.

There's nothing written about the water being bluer on the other side, and it would be a lie if there were. All water, earth, love, and hatred are the same, and only a matter of varying degrees. Sadness is the same. Everything is the same.

I walk on days-old snow, destroying the calmness of frozen surfaces. There never has been more or less than in this moment. Everything is the same. Life is a series of the in-between moments, occasionally punctuated by the novel.

Love is the coldest lake, and the less still. The boredom of love is an abyss that drains the life from the healthy to the point they wither and die instantaneously. Maybe there is no ressurection afterwards, although we all limp forward and try. Once corrupted, maybe love is never to be saved.

A splash of caffeine rakes its hot fingers through the gooey areas of my brain. Something stirs. Madness sits, a raven, keeping the eggs that are my ideas warm until the hatch into still-born lines about things nobody knows. There is only one loss in life worthy of the name, that of progress and love. The endless march of progress losses everything to gain nothing, and it eats at love like a flame eats at gasoline. The funeral was held at the lake.

Stillness pervaded, nothing stirred.

Belief, nothing and madness

/ andyveilleux / Leave a comment

Belief is a distinctly human trait, and built on human rationality. Somewhere between Donald Davidson and Jane Goodale, life happens.

Stinky, barbaric, chaotic life. The kind that numbs the brain like sitting hunched over staring at your black keyboard with no words that can capture the moment of nothing. The kind of nothing that could not go by any other name and could never be understood by anybody who never spent time torn down by strong anti-depressants, or at least sunken into the abyss of a serious depression.

Numb nothingness.

The kind of numbness crafted from a lack of love, or love torn off your back like an old, bloody and pale band-aid only to reveal an infected wound that blasts pain to the limits of your being. Cures are for quitters and only the truth-seekers – and admittedly those with a hint of masochisism – can absorb the experience of a world crashing down around their waxy ears.

We build the foundations of our lives on nothing. Beliefs are pulled together as patchwork abominations, scary and aggressive, but even more transitory than new years resolutions and sports rosters. Beliefs are often built on prejudice, half-baked ideas and tunnel-vision perspectives, yet taken as transcedental truth.

We live there, We all live there. No wonder people are not good to each other.

A person is a collection of actions, statements and rumours. If there’s an intelligent design, humans were thrown together as an example of what happens when the boundaries of dysfunction and chaos anally rape order and justice.

We can ive nowhere else, and we can never walk away from ourselves. No bullet could remove us, and no chemical lobotomy or hallucigenic drug could propel us out of being stuck here. We are right here, staring at an off-white wall where nothing but screams, crying and the howls of madness reach our ears.

Shut up and listen. You can hear it too. Madness, distant but coming on like a train. It claims every brilliant mind it did not birth.

on human coldness (unfinished)

/ andyveilleux / 4 Comments

 

There is no sunset to ride into at the end of life. A sunset is followed by the frozen night, until the day breaks, temporarily. The frozen night returns, always. It is unwavering. The sun fights a constant battle to try and warm the earth, and sustain life. We live, warm, until we die, cold. Even the sun runs on a finite cycle. It's going to work until it can't anymore, and that's the end of life.
 
Don't worry, our lives are much shorter than that cycle. 'But why all the good news?' some may ask. Simple. There's a sickness in my stomach today, that needs to be spit out.

The duty of a thinking person to their community: an essay

/ andyveilleux / 4 Comments

 

The question of what, if anything, is owed to a community by a thinking person is a pressing one. In an age where it is easier than ever to reach out to other humans, and also to become educated, due to the prevalence and accessibility of the internet, there has never been a more pressing time to discuss the issue.

There are several philosophers, and, in fact, superheroes and politicians, who provide marvellous answers concerning the duty of the thinking individual. The thinking individual has a duty to their community, and the debt can never be paid in full. It is the responsibility of thinking individuals to educate people in their community, which in the modern day, extends globally. Socrates is the first philosopher to be examined, followed by Soren Kierkegaard. Spider-Man and Pierre Elliott Trudeau will be examined next.

For Socrates it was not a question of whether or not a thinking individual had a duty to his community, but rather to what length a thinking people should push themselves in aiding their fellow citizens. With Socrates, there didn't seem to be a limit. A thinking individual owed it to his community to question everything, and to make sure that others were being engaged. Not even the threat of death should stop the thinking individual from performing his duty, as Socrates forfeit his life to demonstrate.

Socrates was exceptional in his perseverance and determination with educating his fellow man, and believed god had charged him with the task of educating others. This led to his strong conviction with educating his fellow citizens, which would not even be broken by the threat of charges or death. Socrates explains how he wanted to educate citizens to become wisest and best:

“That is what I did. I tried to persuade each of you to care first not about any of his possessions, but about himself and how he'll become best and wisest; and not primarily about the city's possessions, but about the city itself; and to care about all other things in the same way.”

Socrates did not understand how these men did not see the good he was doing for the community.

The fact he was not well-accepted by his fellow citizens did not dissuade him however. The topic of becoming an outcast, or at least having to sacrifice greatly to helps others, will be discussed at great length when Kierkegaard is examined.

Socrates saw his impending death as something that would do more harm than good to his city. “You may be sure that if you put me to death – a man of the sort I said I was just now – you won't harm me more than you harm yourselves,” he said during his trial. This quote does not simply define his position in regards to the amount of good he was responsible for. The statement also demonstrates the sincerity with which he approached life, and the general education of himself and his fellow man. Socrates did not mean any harm with his questioning, and was quite sincere with his attempt to do good. As we will see later, when superheroes are discussed, intentions do not often save one from being on the wrong side of public opinion.

Socrates' intentions are further expressed in his response to the punishment of exile, which he brings up as a possible punishment that he could never serve. In discussing exile, he also discusses the manner in which others view his attempts at performing good as something negative:

“If I say that to do that would be to disobey the god, and that is why I can't mind my own business, you won't believe me, since you'll suppose I'm being ironical. But again, if I say it's the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day…on the grounds that the unexamined life isn't worth living for a human being, you'll believe me even less.”

At this point, Socrates discusses how god has charged him with the duty to educate others, how he is often misunderstood or seen as a negative force in the community, and how he knows few people believe him when he suggests the unexamined life is not worth living.  He can not allow himself to be exiled, as he is performing god's work, but he also realizes no one will believe him when he claims he is following god's will. After trying to explain how he is performing his duty to the community, and failing to persuade the jury, he is sentenced to death. After he is sentenced, he has some more sincere, if not slightly mocking, words for the jury.

“When my sons come of age, gentlemen, punish them by harassing them in the very same way that I harassed you, if they seem to you to take care of wealth or anything before virtue, if they think they're someone when they're no one. Reproach them, just as I reproached you: tell them that they don't care for the things they should and think they're someone when they're nothing.”

The snarky nature of his comments should not undermine the meaning behind them. He sincerely hopes that there is someone around to question his children as they grow up, in the manner he questioned people. He sincerely wants to make people the best they possibly can be, and he feels his approach is a good one. Therefore he hopes someone pushes his children in the same manner he pushes others. The fact that he is using his limited time to address the public to discuss this matter should also be noted, because of its sincerity.

It is worth briefly mentioning Aristotle's belief regarding virtue being attainable for everyone. We will see a contrast with Kierkegaard's views, which will be discussed shortly. Aristotle believes the “best state” will be one in which virtue or “excellence is a mean,” which will be attainable by everyone. Therefore he believes that in the best state, virtue will be attainable by everyone. This is obviously an idealistic perspective of what a state should be, but the important thing to note is that he believes eventually virtue will be attainable by everyone. It is uncertain whether or not he means virtue in the same manner Kierkegaard does, but it can be assumed that he does.

At the time of Aristotle's writing, there was not the distinction between regular virtue and the higher virtue, which is discussed at length by Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard does not believe true virtue is attainable by everyone, and his arguments are more geared towards the separation of regular folks from the “thinking” folks. That being said, Aristotle is obviously not talking about the lower form of virtue when he is discussing it, and more easily fits into the higher virtue discussion.

Kierkegaard's concept of “double danger” adds an interesting element to the discussion. The first part of this concept is that humans must “overcome the natural selfishness and simple inertia that push us towards the satisfaction of our own desires when those desires conflict with the good of others.” The second part is that humans who have undertaken the first danger must also “put up with being abominated almost as a criminal, insulted and ridiculed.” Furthermore, he argued an individual who wishes to be truly good, and in doing so rise above the ordinary level of moral virtue, must accept the negative reaction from others. C. Stephen Evans summarizes it, “We may admire saints at a safe distance, but an actual encounter with heroic selflessness is likely to disturb us.”

According to Kierkegaard, a thinking individual owes the community an existence in which they may be seen as an abomination by their fellow citizens. This is a fairly harsh judgement from him, but something that is not uncommon in history, or even fiction. Kierkegaard's “double danger” concept is seen clearly with Socrates. He was too just for his fellow citizens, and was simply too good, it would appear. Therefore, he drew their ire, so much so, that he ended up dying by their hand. Those familiar with superheroes will see the concept of “double danger” quite clearly with the earlier days of Spider-Man.

The Spider-Man comic series has a famous saying: “With great power, comes great responsibility.” The line is told to Peter by his Uncle Ben early in the series, and resonates throughout the entire series.

The concept was also used heavily in Spider-Man 2 (the film). Peter Parker, Spider-Man's secret identity, is frequently forced to sacrifice his own happiness in favour of his duty to the community. He often forgoes chances at love and happiness, or even a regular life in general, so that he may aid his fellow citizens. He is often criticized in the Daily Bugle for his efforts, despite how heroic they are. These criticisms match up with Kierkegaard's concept of the second danger perfectly. In the presence of one so heroic, J. Jonah Jameson, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Bugle, is disturbed and therefore tries to bring Spider-Man down. Spider-Man has not been forced to drink Hemlock yet, but that is not for a lack of trying on Jameson, or some of the other villains' part.

One might argue that a superhero is far removed from the 'thinking man' we are debating in this paper, but I disagree. The thinking man has an extraordinary gift, which allows him to help people in a manner regular people are unable to. Superheroes have super-powers, or are blessed with superhuman abilities at least, which allow them to perform public duties regular humans could not generally perform. In both cases, the individual is responsible to their community, because they are able to help where others might not be.

This duty may not be something that is natural for humans. In fact, judging from the works of Socrates and Kierkegaard, it would seem it is quite unnatural for humans to behave in such a good manner. Humans are more likely to try and disgrace, or even kill, someone who is attempting to behave in such a good fashion. For the last section of this paper, Trudeau's beliefs regarding international aid will be discussed.

In his recent book While Canada Slept, Andrew Cohen discusses Trudeau's outlook on foreign aid. “Trudeau was intellectually committed to foreign aid,” he says. “Having travelled widely in the Third World, he understood the obligation of the rich to the poor.”

Whereas Socrates focused on benefiting his fellow citizens of Athens, and Spider-Man generally focuses on his city as well (with the occasional saving-the-world event thrown in for good measure), Trudeau was a global thinking man. I'm not suggesting Socrates wasn't universal in his philosophical discussion, but his scope of impact was limited to Athens during his life. Trudeau chose to focus on international aid, as he lived in the modern day 'global village.' Trudeau speaks of the importance of international aid for the countries receiving the aid, but also the positive effect doing good has on the giver (which is a bit of a contrast with Kierkegaard, no doubt):

The social, economic, and political betterment of any man anywhere is ultimately reflected in this country. Unquestionably the concept of international assistance is appealing because it is one of the most uplifting endeavours in which man has ever engaged. But we must never forget that in this process Canadians are beneficiaries as well as benefactors.”

Trudeau's view is that performing good deeds helps the giver, as well as the receiver. This is a direct contrast to Kierkegaard's “double danger” concept. However, both men agree that there is a duty to perform good actions when one is capable of doing so. Both would also agree that the thinking man should educate others, just as Socrates did.

In the end, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Trudeau and Spider-Man all agree, in principle and often in action, that good should be performed whenever it is possible. The thinking man has an obligation to his community to help make the members of their community as wise as possible, and to help make them the best human beings they can be. This is a responsibility that falls on every thinking person, in every community, and to push it aside would be an act of evil.

Sudbury Star’s failure with the 2010 municipal election and what it means

/ andyveilleux / 35 Comments

To say I am disappointed with The Sudbury Star’s unapologetic stance regarding their “City misled public…” article would be an understatement. The article was released on the Saturday before the election, which took place this Monday, and may have affected the results of the election. This is more than a case of poor timing.

The article begins: “One of the first things this council did four years ago was to authorize senior city managers to mislead the public about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a former employee, a Sudbury Star investigation reveals.”

By “Sudbury Star investigation,” they mean brown envelope that mysteriously showed up in their office at the beginning of the week, containing information only employees in City Hall knew.

Marianne Matichuk worked  for the city for 17 years. The Star supported Matichuk in an editorial on Friday, even using her buzz-word in their headline (“Change;” her website is realchangenow.ca, and she’s campaigning on the idea of change in council).

The article has NO sources in it that are current, and did not allow any balance whatsoever. I have a serious issue with their “attempts” to contact John Rodriguez, and any other relevant sources for the article:

“Calls to Stephen and Mieto were not returned. E-mails asking for response sent to Mayor John Rodriguez and all city councillors were not returned.

CAO Doug Nadorozny did respond, asking for more time in order to contact Stephen.”

So you can’t pick up the phone and call John Rodriguez, the man whose campaign you just torpedoed? Don’t give me that. No journalist or paper, with integrity, would launch a story like that at a candidate, and then not even make a decent effort to contact them.

Brian MacLeod, The Star’s Managing Editor, was on CBC’s Points North with Jason Turnbull earlier today, and his interview failed to seriously respond to any of these issues. He defended the article’s timing by revealing how the brown envelope showed up in their office at the beginning of the week.

I don’t know why it would take an entire week to write a story, which did not use any sources, or how in one week’s time a city council reporter as seasoned as Mike Whitehouse could not contact John Rodriguez. Whitehouse is a better reporter than that.

MacLeod also defended the paper’s editorial, stating that they always backed a candidate. I understand their practice of backing a candidate in an election, although I personally don’t believe journalists should publicly back any candidate. I will agree to disagree with that issue.

I am not willing to let their other irresponsible behaviour in this election go, however. When you support a candidate on Friday, and then torpedo her main competition on Saturday, without letting the competition respond, that is inexcusable.

Rodriguez responded to the article, after he was defeated in the election, claiming it was something one would typically see in the southern United States. He is right. It was gutless, and to shrug off his comments as the emotional response of a defeated politician is irresponsible, and childish, but that was the Star’s response anyways.

I was pleased to see Turnbull ask some hard questions about the issue, but it’s not enough to have one interview about it and then let it disappear. As journalists, we must police ourselves when it comes to ethics and responsibility. Most importantly, we must watch for bias.

I agree with Hunter S. Thomson that objectivity is impossible, but that does not mean we can absolve ourselves from the pursuit of it. We must be vigilant to watch our biases do not interfere with our coverage of the news, and be sure not to negatively affect matters we should merely observe and report on.

The Sudbury Star has failed the public, and tried to absolve themselves of responsibility for doing so. It will likely be shrugged off by the masses, but I hope people will take notice of how important a failing like this is to democracy. Their poor judgement may have affected the results of a democratic election, and that is a more powerful failure than any ordinary slander.

Maybe shoddy reporting like this has something to do with the public’s distrust of journalists? (the three links included here are from the UK, USA, and Canada, respectively).

Good conversations and the eternal sadness of being human

/ andyveilleux / Leave a comment

I've been having a lot of conversations lately, with a bunch of people with differing opinions. I've talked about purpose in life, Hemingway, Jung, Bukowski, the ADHD generation I am coming up in, intellectual boredom and stagnation, the difference between academic and public writing, and most important, the overall sadness that invades daily life.

There's a certain sadness to the daily events of life. Not specifically, because it's nothing you can put you finger on, but generally. It's not an overwhelming sadness.

It doesn't team up with the other negative emotions to push you down. It waits in the background most of the time. Occasionally, you can let it out of its cage, and play with it until you're both satisfied. It then will return to its cage and wait your next moment of weakness. In this way, it is like that ex-girlfriend, or friend-you-slept-with-and-sort-of-regretted-who-won't-go-away.

A lot of conversation has centred around what causes this sadness, and whether it will ever go away. I don't think it ever really goes away. The dull pain is probably always going to be there behind my ears. Maybe that's what got to Hemingway and Hunter S. Thomson.

Maybe it comes down to knowing that eventually we're all going to die. Our bodies can only continue for so long, and then the show's over. Good-bye Andy consciousness, you'll be gone for good one day. Hell, the whole species is doomed for that matter.

That's the eternal sadness of being human. It may be the only part of us that survives.

There is an emotion that teams up with that overall sadness well; loneliness. The feeling, or even thought, of being alone. To quote Bukowski, "there is a loneliness in this world so great that you can see it in the slow movement of the hands of a clock." The clocks have gone digital, the loneliness has to.

Now we sit around on MSN, Facebook, Twitter, just waiting for that message to lead us to salvation, away from loneliness. Sometimes it comes, sometimes it doesn't; but it never lasts. 

It's quicker than ever to get in touch with someone, but it's harder than ever to hold their attention and time. How much spectacle is acceptable in one's life to keep on entertaining, without becoming the jester?

Some nights are harder than others.

On being genuine, free, and responsible

/ andyveilleux / Leave a comment

It's not something that comes with age. It's not something that is relative to maturity. Being genuine is a moral thing.

That being said, there is a certain amount of responsibility in the way you live your life, whether you like it or not. Every decision has a consequence, and no decision you make can be blamed on anyone else.

People have a way of avoiding responsibility, and in doing so, making excuses for their lack of genuineness. "I didn't tell you about ___, because _______." "I didn't ask you to _____, because so-and-so said______." "It;s not my fault, it's your fault, because ______."

Stop it.

You are granted almost complete freedom in your life, you need to learn how to be responsible for that freedom. Sure, living in a society restrains certain freedoms. If you don't like the social constraints, leave your society. Back to reality:

You are free, therefore you must accept the responsibility of your life. Lying was not brought on by someone else. You chose to lie, you deal with the consequences. You choose to cheat on your partner, you wear the guilt of it. If you choose to hurt a loved one, You must carry the weight of that betrayal.

I've encountered many forms of this in the past month or so specifically. This has mainly been in cross-gender friendships I'm involved in, which should not come as a surprise, considering they can often be complex situations.

It can be as simple as a clever lie to parry a curious question I asked (which, evidently, was not so clever). It can be as big as inventing a reason to not hang out. It can be as complicated as mixing fact and fiction to describe a disagreeable recent-past event as "for the best," when in reality, that's not the way the person was truly feeling.

All of these are lies, and there is a serious problem when it comes to misdirection and dishonesty in our day-to-day interactions. Lies compound themselves, and begin breeding more lies. Lies also grow from small, controllable fact-fiction hybrids, into untamed beasts of deceit.

"So what's is your point, Andy?" Well, it's simple: We need to start treating one another better, and living our lives in a more honest and responsible way. We need to practice being open with our communication, and realizing the consequences that our actions have on the people around us.

I understand the counter-arguments. "Not everyone is going to do this." So what? It's better to live your life in a moral, and respectable manner, and your influence may spread beyond yourself and encourage this healthy way of living amongst your friends and family. "If I'm always honest, and the other person isn't, I'll just get hurt." If you're dealing with a snake like that, you're going to get hurt anyways. There's no reason to act like an abusive idiot, just because someone has abused you.

In conclusion, I hope to see more people behaving responsible. If you make a mistake, confess it to the people who are affected. Make amends with them. Error is a human trait, as is forgiveness. Practice both, and we'll all be happier for it.