Some people give all they can to people, but giving isn't a universally positive thing to do. Still, there are a lot of different approaches to garnering a reputation as a "nice" person. Despite what may be a popular opinion, though, being a respectable person goes way beyond frequent acts of generosity. Truly nice people know to respect other people's boundaries, sensibilities, and self-worth, and that often means letting it be. That's right. Sometimes the nicest thing you can do is to stop drowning us in favors all the time. Maybe don't bring your green bean casserole over for Thanksgiving if I said I could make my own. Maybe don't tell me your tennis serving strategy if I already have my own. Maybe don't give me your advice on how to beat Rainbow Road if I want to figure it out myself! Sometimes, giving sucks, and being generous can be stupid. There, I said it. It's not that I'm a cross person at this party. I'm not. It's just that I have to compete with a host who's provided a veggie tray, a chocolate fountain, a fondue pot, two pizzas, and three different meat selections. And if I add any more to this spread, I'll just add to what's thrown away later on. Your contributions can often be unwelcome if I already have 100% of a perfectly good brain, thank you. (Help when it's asked for is a wonderful thing, but that's a topic for another blog post.)
That weird dinner-party metaphor was a way of saying that offering your goods or guidance to someone may very well seem excessive to someone who receives tons already. But giving to someone who has everything he already needs isn't only extraneous--it can be insulting, because it makes the assumption that the intended recipient was missing something. And some people have insecurities about their own capabilities to run their lives. Still others have an ego about their own levels of generosity--they feel better when they do things for others, as you should, but these people consider it a large proportion of their self-worth.
Thus, some people treat being nice as a competition, but competition involves measuring each other. The easiest way we like to measure people and their levels of charity is through money, but that's not fair, because people are thrown into grossly varied statuses of wealth. What can you afford to give when you work 14 hours a day and still can't afford your own air conditioner? And in any case, I don't think the amount of time, money, effort, or any substance is what determines if you're a nice person. People see generosity as a virtue, but I find that it's often met with scorn or disdain. Giving people stuff is great, but there's an assumption made by the giver that goes along with it.
I grew up under the impression that self-sufficiency was a requisite part of adulthood. So if I am to treat my peers like they're mature, I should treat them as if they're self-sufficient-- in other words, like they can handle their own shit. Though there is a disgusting minority of spoiled people who expect every minute task to be done for them, most people don't like to be treated like helpless babies. To me, allowing others to take matters into their own hands is a form of showing respect. To me, a person with humility is a person who treats other people like they have the power to make their own decisions and take care of themselves. Because no one likes to be told what to do all the time, and no one wants to listen to your bullshit pedagogy on how to live life and make proper choices (I say, as I type my bullshit pedagogy for all to read on the internet).
This works in theory and in practice. You can talk about what you theoretically know and believe; you can give people direction or unsolicited advice in a particular situation. And you offer your expertise because you care and because you want to help. But imagine how the intended recipient of such advice is going to feel. Say your friend is trying to hook up a new TV. If you immediately interject and try to offer your ideas on how to do it, it may sound like you're assuming that your friend has no idea what to do. This can come off as offensive, because, to your friend, it sounds like you have a low estimation of his/her intelligence. Now, if you see that your friend begins to struggle with the setup process, you can offer your ideas, but even then, your friend might have a delicate sense of pride in his or her ability to complete tasks independently. To varying degrees, people want to feel like they are capable--some want to feel like they can conquer absolutely anything. Those who want to get everything done on their own will feel robbed if you tell them how to do it; it's like spoiling the answer to a mystery novel or a puzzle they're trying to solve. Nobody likes spoilers.
In practice, you can do things for people. But sometimes, doing something for someone kind of sends the message that they couldn't have gotten it done themselves. I struggled with this a lot as a kid. My mom cares about me a lot, and always did (hi, Mom). She worked relentlessly to provide my brother and me with good food, a clean home, and activities to enjoy. She would point out chores that would need to be done, but she would take care of them before I thought to do so. Mostly, this was because days would go by before these chores reentered my mind, leading to an admittedly weak series of attempts to show my responsibility. But every time she did those chores that I decided I wanted, I felt something I didn't expect to feel; I felt like something was robbed of me (even though the problem was clearly my own laziness). I felt robbed of the opportunity to prove that I could do it.
So sometimes, when I think of doing lots of things for other people, I begin to feel concerned that I might rob those potential recipients of the opportunity to show their ability to do it themselves. Before you bark out orders to others on how to do things, consider that, maybe the importance of making sure others believe in their own capabilities outweighs the importance of making sure something is done the "right" way. When I have advice to give, I consider that other people might not want to hear it, because they might think I'm a know-it-all who believes I'm smarter than they are. Before I tell someone that I think they should change, I consider the possibility that this person can handle their fucking shit just as well as I can, maybe better--and even if they can't, I can help them believe in themselves by shutting my mouth and letting it be, anyway, because their faculties should be good enough if I'm hanging out with them. (If you need them to fundamentally change themselves on such a large scale that this
Being nice isn't taking the power and making the decisions for everyone, even if you know what you're doing, and even it's for their own good. Being nice is recognizing the power inside of (most) everyone to support themselves and make their own decisions in life, and offering your power to others when they need it. It's very important that we give help to others when it's requested, but shoving it down the throats of others when they don't want it can appear self-righteous, arrogant, and condescending.
This means that making yourself look like a nice person is a delicate balancing act. You need to be someone that others rely on, but you also need to respect others' abilities to handle their own problems independently if they so choose, except in certain dire cases. Even if you believe that you're trying to be charitable, your friend might be nothing more than disgusted by you when you snatch the video game controller out of his hand and beat the boss character for him. Maybe he wanted the satisfaction of conquering the task for himself! On the other hand, there are situations when you should step in and fight, but these are situations of dire need and personal safety. For example, I wouldn't care about my friend's judgment if we were at the beach and we were encountering a stinging jellyfish. My will to keep us both safe would override any will to respect my friend's insistence in doing things his own way, especially if my friend's modus operandae is to go up to a dangerous wild animal and poke it with a stick. But for the most part, a nice person will grant another person enough agency to trust that other person to get things done smoothly and confidently. Succinctly, you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose; but you can't pick your friend's nose, unless there's something in his nose that might infect his brain and kill him. There's nothing nice, kind, or generous about taking over all the tasks and decision-making for another human being. There's nothing productive about doing all of another person's job so that the other person doesn't have to. There's nothing respectful about overriding another person's opinion with your own. Other people need to develop the skills, morals, and opinions necessary to carry on through life, and doing all the thought and activity for them prevents that development from occurring. Be available and willing to help, but don't just barge in as if you're the only one who knows what you're doing. Offer your services, act reliably, and be someone others can trust. But also respect others' abilities and desires to get things done their own way, and leave them their space if they want it.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Saturday, January 17, 2015
On the Corollaries Between Exercising And Understanding
The human body is a marvelously user-friendly device. If you desire accessibility to a greater level of strength in any particular body part, all you have to do is use that body part repeatedly, and that alone signals to your internal command center that you want to increase the aptitude in that specific place. Analogously, if you wish to improve your ability to perform a physical task, you can simply practice that task repeatedly, and your body will respond by funneling strength into the collection of muscles needed. And as you perform that task more and more, you become more physically apt to perform that task well. But let's compare the case of the physical skill mentioned thus far, to its mental counterpart, the acquisition of know-how.
Learning a mental skill is analogous to becoming physically adept at a physical task, because the repeated execution of the task leads to a greater skill that allows one to perform it with ever-increasing ease. If you want to know how to do something well, you try at it repeatedly until it feels like second nature. As humans, this might seem obvious, but it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. In fact, some people resist this method of learning, choosing instead to treat the acquisition of knowledge as something far more abstract and random.
Here, I really want to discuss the difference between two types of people: the intuitive and the sensing. These words, "intuitive" and "sensing," are in reference to the popular Myers-Briggs system of personality tests and classifications. (While I believe that the Myers-Briggs personality types fail to cover most of what is important about a person, they do lead to some conclusions that are fascinating and important in my eyes.) What I want to focus on is the second letter in the type, which deals with the intake of information, or perception. Intuition and sensing are two opposite functions that deal with a person's perception of reality-- simply, sensing is to take the world literally, for what it is, while intuition is an abstract, theoretical view of the happenings in the world. Sensing-type individuals are the ones who live in the moment and see things for what they are, questioning relatively little about what they perceive. The motto of a sensing-type person is "what you see is what you get." Intuitive people will question beyond what they see, extrapolating on their findings with little or no provocation. Rather than simply seeing what is there, and intuitive person will consider its past and future, or perhaps how a certain thing could be changed or improved.
These two different types of people are defined by their own default method of how knowledge is acquired, and I'm finding that one of these is much more useful than the other. For sensing-type individuals, learning is primarily done in the way I first outlined-- through practice. Repetition leads to an ability to apply their skills more and more smoothly until it becomes rudimentary. This is the learning style that relates clearly to the acquisition of physical strength; use your triceps to lift something many times, and the body will respond by increasing the muscle mass in your triceps. Do something more, and you get better at it. It's a really simple and highly convenient system, but even so, the intuitive people living in dreamland forsake it for an abstract approach.
By my nature, I am one of these dreamers, but I have started to resent it in a way, because my priorities are learning more than ever toward application. It seems to me that knowledge gained as a bank of abstract theory is harder to apply than knowledge gained through practice. Knowledge gained through practice and repetition is granted purpose inherently during its acquisition; if you're doing a thing, you are learning that thing in the process, and the purpose of that process is to continue doing that thing with greater effectiveness. So learning that thing already has purpose--to do that thing better! But the acquisition of theoretical, abstract knowledge, has a theoretical, abstract purpose that's often harder to see. It's harder for me to guarantee that I will use a piece of theoretical knowledge later in life, when learning a bit of practical knowledge through an action I'm committing already has an application--and I'm witnessing its application as I learn it! When do I witness the application of a theoretical nugget of wisdom that I read in a book, hear by word of mouth, or hypothesize based on observation? I can't ever answer this question quickly and easily, and that's why my grades in college started to decline.
When you learn theory in school, you ask yourself questions like, "when in my life am I ever going to use this?" And as I've matured, I've found that I have little time for ideas that I don't use, now that it's my own responsibility to take care of myself. Before, when I encountered a person without a desire to learn a particular thing, I would scorn them as an anti-intellectual, but now, when I encounter such a person ignoring someone's convoluted argument about something, I consider that person wise about the allocation of their own time and effort.
When it comes down to it, it's unnatural to be cramming a bunch of complex theory into your brain without witnessing its application. The analogy I made comparing exercise to the acquisition of practical knowledge can't be made for the absorption of theory. Because unlike the process of learning a tidbit of knowledge for the sake of doing it, the human body doesn't randomly decide to strengthen a muscle in preparation for a physical task that you might have to perform at some point.
This isn't to say that learning theoretical knowledge is useless-- in fact, this couldn't be farther from the truth, now that we live in a society that thrives on particular abstract constructs. Three of the most important theoretical, intangible ideas that we live with are time, love, and monetary worth. These concepts meant nothing to homo sapiens ten thousand years ago, but with the advancement of civilization to the point such as it is today, having a grasp on them is fundamental to everyday acts of survival. We need to understand manmade concepts like time, love, and money, as functioning in society requires us to plan our schedules, commit to relationships, and budget our earnings. But even these actions can be learned by doing, rather than studying. If you aren't sure what you can get away with spending, you find out by trying to spend certain amounts, in certain ways, and on certain things; then you learn from the results. If you aren't sure what actions will please your relationship partner, you try them and see if he or she approves. If you aren't sure how much action you can handle in your schedule, you will find out by measuring your own stress levels as you busy yourself to particular extents.
What I'm starting to discredit is when people make life decisions according to pure theory. This may be a cliche, but it's one of the truest statements I can imagine: you don't know if you'll like something until you try it. Usually, this statement is used as an argument against someone who simply refuses to try something; but, it also applies to people who decide they like the idea of something before they actually get involved in it. Some people look at their list of likes and dislikes as a large part of their identity; there's a reason why Facebook has an entire section on their personality profiles for "Likes." And for some such people, the existence of a certain something on their list is more a statement of self-identity than an actual emotional affinity for that thing. For example, there are lots of men who claim to be into metal and hard rock, not because they actually enjoy it, but because of the statement of toughness it makes. And lots of other people read lots of books, not because they actually enjoy reading, but so that they feel like others will see them as well-read and assume them to be intelligent. In fact, the things people claim to like can be just for the sake of SELF-image; for example, an avid reader might be trying to convince HIMSELF that he is intelligent because he read some books. Or a patron of "gangsta-rap" might be trying to convince himself that he is tough enough to handle a tough life on the city streets. In any case, some people like to subscribe to the idea of things before actually experiencing them.
Some people say things like "I would love to go to this place I've never been to," and "I would love to meet this person I've never met." But what these people should really be saying is "I would love to try these things"-- the speaker, in this case, doesn't actually have any experience yet, from which to opine. And trying things is great-- imperative, in fact. But can we please give a little more thought to the distinction between "trying" and "doing?" "Trying," in this case, indicates exploration: trying to gain familiarity with the unknown. This is fundamental for the human experience; this is how we develop any sort of understanding, from the blank slate we begin with at infancy. However, when you deal with subjects with which you haven't come into direct contact, banking on unverified hypotheses is a fatal choice. You don't know that marrying Josh will be the best choice if you haven't even gotten to know him yet. You don't know that moving to Spain will lead to unbridled happiness if you've never even been to Spain. You don't know that majoring in photography will be a good choice if you don't know what it's like to enter the workforce with a degree in that field. And in some cases, like these, you need to make decisions about your future, but you can't possibly make decisions based on experience because you can't experience the future yet! But you do have the power to make the most informed decision possible within your means-- date Josh and find out what he's like. Stay in Spain for several weeks and see if you enjoy life there. Get to know some people who graduated with photography degrees and find out where it took them (likely, not far). But most of all, stop giving priority to preconceived notions of things, and instead, default on the tried and true facts if they already exist in front of you.
When we launch ourselves into a new territory
Learning a mental skill is analogous to becoming physically adept at a physical task, because the repeated execution of the task leads to a greater skill that allows one to perform it with ever-increasing ease. If you want to know how to do something well, you try at it repeatedly until it feels like second nature. As humans, this might seem obvious, but it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. In fact, some people resist this method of learning, choosing instead to treat the acquisition of knowledge as something far more abstract and random.
Here, I really want to discuss the difference between two types of people: the intuitive and the sensing. These words, "intuitive" and "sensing," are in reference to the popular Myers-Briggs system of personality tests and classifications. (While I believe that the Myers-Briggs personality types fail to cover most of what is important about a person, they do lead to some conclusions that are fascinating and important in my eyes.) What I want to focus on is the second letter in the type, which deals with the intake of information, or perception. Intuition and sensing are two opposite functions that deal with a person's perception of reality-- simply, sensing is to take the world literally, for what it is, while intuition is an abstract, theoretical view of the happenings in the world. Sensing-type individuals are the ones who live in the moment and see things for what they are, questioning relatively little about what they perceive. The motto of a sensing-type person is "what you see is what you get." Intuitive people will question beyond what they see, extrapolating on their findings with little or no provocation. Rather than simply seeing what is there, and intuitive person will consider its past and future, or perhaps how a certain thing could be changed or improved.
These two different types of people are defined by their own default method of how knowledge is acquired, and I'm finding that one of these is much more useful than the other. For sensing-type individuals, learning is primarily done in the way I first outlined-- through practice. Repetition leads to an ability to apply their skills more and more smoothly until it becomes rudimentary. This is the learning style that relates clearly to the acquisition of physical strength; use your triceps to lift something many times, and the body will respond by increasing the muscle mass in your triceps. Do something more, and you get better at it. It's a really simple and highly convenient system, but even so, the intuitive people living in dreamland forsake it for an abstract approach.
By my nature, I am one of these dreamers, but I have started to resent it in a way, because my priorities are learning more than ever toward application. It seems to me that knowledge gained as a bank of abstract theory is harder to apply than knowledge gained through practice. Knowledge gained through practice and repetition is granted purpose inherently during its acquisition; if you're doing a thing, you are learning that thing in the process, and the purpose of that process is to continue doing that thing with greater effectiveness. So learning that thing already has purpose--to do that thing better! But the acquisition of theoretical, abstract knowledge, has a theoretical, abstract purpose that's often harder to see. It's harder for me to guarantee that I will use a piece of theoretical knowledge later in life, when learning a bit of practical knowledge through an action I'm committing already has an application--and I'm witnessing its application as I learn it! When do I witness the application of a theoretical nugget of wisdom that I read in a book, hear by word of mouth, or hypothesize based on observation? I can't ever answer this question quickly and easily, and that's why my grades in college started to decline.
When you learn theory in school, you ask yourself questions like, "when in my life am I ever going to use this?" And as I've matured, I've found that I have little time for ideas that I don't use, now that it's my own responsibility to take care of myself. Before, when I encountered a person without a desire to learn a particular thing, I would scorn them as an anti-intellectual, but now, when I encounter such a person ignoring someone's convoluted argument about something, I consider that person wise about the allocation of their own time and effort.
When it comes down to it, it's unnatural to be cramming a bunch of complex theory into your brain without witnessing its application. The analogy I made comparing exercise to the acquisition of practical knowledge can't be made for the absorption of theory. Because unlike the process of learning a tidbit of knowledge for the sake of doing it, the human body doesn't randomly decide to strengthen a muscle in preparation for a physical task that you might have to perform at some point.
This isn't to say that learning theoretical knowledge is useless-- in fact, this couldn't be farther from the truth, now that we live in a society that thrives on particular abstract constructs. Three of the most important theoretical, intangible ideas that we live with are time, love, and monetary worth. These concepts meant nothing to homo sapiens ten thousand years ago, but with the advancement of civilization to the point such as it is today, having a grasp on them is fundamental to everyday acts of survival. We need to understand manmade concepts like time, love, and money, as functioning in society requires us to plan our schedules, commit to relationships, and budget our earnings. But even these actions can be learned by doing, rather than studying. If you aren't sure what you can get away with spending, you find out by trying to spend certain amounts, in certain ways, and on certain things; then you learn from the results. If you aren't sure what actions will please your relationship partner, you try them and see if he or she approves. If you aren't sure how much action you can handle in your schedule, you will find out by measuring your own stress levels as you busy yourself to particular extents.
What I'm starting to discredit is when people make life decisions according to pure theory. This may be a cliche, but it's one of the truest statements I can imagine: you don't know if you'll like something until you try it. Usually, this statement is used as an argument against someone who simply refuses to try something; but, it also applies to people who decide they like the idea of something before they actually get involved in it. Some people look at their list of likes and dislikes as a large part of their identity; there's a reason why Facebook has an entire section on their personality profiles for "Likes." And for some such people, the existence of a certain something on their list is more a statement of self-identity than an actual emotional affinity for that thing. For example, there are lots of men who claim to be into metal and hard rock, not because they actually enjoy it, but because of the statement of toughness it makes. And lots of other people read lots of books, not because they actually enjoy reading, but so that they feel like others will see them as well-read and assume them to be intelligent. In fact, the things people claim to like can be just for the sake of SELF-image; for example, an avid reader might be trying to convince HIMSELF that he is intelligent because he read some books. Or a patron of "gangsta-rap" might be trying to convince himself that he is tough enough to handle a tough life on the city streets. In any case, some people like to subscribe to the idea of things before actually experiencing them.
Some people say things like "I would love to go to this place I've never been to," and "I would love to meet this person I've never met." But what these people should really be saying is "I would love to try these things"-- the speaker, in this case, doesn't actually have any experience yet, from which to opine. And trying things is great-- imperative, in fact. But can we please give a little more thought to the distinction between "trying" and "doing?" "Trying," in this case, indicates exploration: trying to gain familiarity with the unknown. This is fundamental for the human experience; this is how we develop any sort of understanding, from the blank slate we begin with at infancy. However, when you deal with subjects with which you haven't come into direct contact, banking on unverified hypotheses is a fatal choice. You don't know that marrying Josh will be the best choice if you haven't even gotten to know him yet. You don't know that moving to Spain will lead to unbridled happiness if you've never even been to Spain. You don't know that majoring in photography will be a good choice if you don't know what it's like to enter the workforce with a degree in that field. And in some cases, like these, you need to make decisions about your future, but you can't possibly make decisions based on experience because you can't experience the future yet! But you do have the power to make the most informed decision possible within your means-- date Josh and find out what he's like. Stay in Spain for several weeks and see if you enjoy life there. Get to know some people who graduated with photography degrees and find out where it took them (likely, not far). But most of all, stop giving priority to preconceived notions of things, and instead, default on the tried and true facts if they already exist in front of you.
When we launch ourselves into a new territory
Monday, January 12, 2015
The Requisite Entitlement of Being an Artist.
Feed your face. Then, feed the people. Only when both of those are accomplished can you then feed your head.
What do you hear when someone tells you that their primary goal in life is to be an artist? Do you bask in the revelry of being in the presence of a dreamer? Are you fascinated by the potential for this person to inspire you? Do you feel inadequate, thinking of how you wish you were creative enough to pursue your artistic dreams like the visionary before you? I don't anymore.
After your primary education, all maturing adults are eventually dumped into the "real world," as it's so called, in which we are forced, on our own, to achieve subsistence. Once can marvel at the vast variety of career options that lie about. As spoiled citizens of a developed country, we almost unanimously begin our career decisions by looking at these options in terms of what we want to do-- we ask ourselves, "which occupation is for me?"
Although children are always asked, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" another necessary question to ask yourself is, "what will the populace need from me when I grow up?" Jobs, for the most part, don't exist because we simply want them to; they exist because there's a need for them. Finding an occupation that suits you is made vastly easier by the existence of a great variation in demanded skills, but these skills exist on the basis of public need, not the people's entitlement to do whatever they want to do.
So if jobs are in existence because of need, we must, then, address what people need in the world. Take a look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs; society's foundation doesn't rely on art. The most basic human needs include food, water, shelter and clothing. Once those are established, we can move on to utilities, security, transportation, infrastructure, fire protection, communications, and things that are viewed as needs in a developed society but considered luxuries to the very poor. But the last thing on our list of needs, though it is still considered a "need" is self-fulfillment. This category contains all the things we use to reach for personal happiness and satisfaction that don't really affect the world at large. These are the things we reach for in order to achieve nothing more than physical and mental stimulation. These are things like art.
The first thing we consider when choosing our profession is our own selfish personal preferences; we don't start by considering the care demanded by those in our communities and across the world, which is actually the basis for all viable professions everywhere. So, by this notion, a choice to specialize in a field less needed by actual people is a choice made out of selfishness. In fact, I perceive a sense of arrogance whenever another person tells me that he or she is destined or intent to embark on a career of artistic exploration. A decision to place art at the topmost ranking priority is a blatant disregard of the needs of others, or it is a failure to understand which, of the various needs of the public, are more important. And a failure to understand the hierarchy of needs almost always stems from an ignorance that arises when a person has lived his or her entire life without a worry that their basic needs might not be met. A person who experiences hunger knows the vital importance of maintaining access to food. A person who experiences poverty knows the vital importance of maintaining a steady income. A person who experiences significant pain knows the importance of avoiding the mistakes they made to create that level of pain. Only once it is granted that hunger, pain, poverty, violence, theft, disease, and other horrors are all being consistently avoided, we can begin to consider giving mind to the sharing of ideas, art, music, and contributions to the entertainment industry. And by that logic, a person who spends their entire life immersed in art, music, and other entertainment, is a spoiled soul, never having to worry about the loss of their most basic necessities. A life of artistic creation, in which your self-identity is shaped primarily by theory, entertainment, and dreams, comes as a massive privilege. While most of society is providing the tangible necessities that we all need, the lucky few get to live a life of intellectual luxury, stewing in the juices of their own dreams. And a person who holds the belief that he or she deserves this life of luxury is an arrogant, entitled one.
The world needs you-- but the world needs particular things from you. The world doesn't need art; it needs care. The world has, first and foremost, needs that you may have never considered because you went your entire life without even considering the possibility of their absence. The world is like a baby crying, and a hungry baby won't be calming down anytime soon if all you do is show it a pretty picture. Give it nourishment, warmth, peace, and a place to sleep. Perhaps the greatest irony is when entitled snobs from high society look down on the people who give us the necessities we require most. We look down on the people who grow our food, take it to market, build our homes, pave our roads, and assemble our clothes. We scorn them, pity them, and call them "rednecks" and "foreigners." But these are the very people who breathe life into us. They don't tend to be the most intelligent. They don't tend to have the most informed political opinions. But they work for us in ways that the self-entitled, self-proclaimed "artist" never will. They suffer pain and hardship every single day, braving unsafe conditions and lackluster sleep schedules-- things that artistic spoiled brats couldn't even imagine as they sit on their laptop blogging (like I am now--yes, I am self-aware) sipping their Starbucks latte in the warm confines of their plush, comfortable furniture, away from the elements. Making fun of the people who provide the most basic necessities is so commonplace, yet their will to comply with doing the dirtier jobs is the very thing that even allows us to sit pretty and dream about frivolous things like our artistic creative visions-- and do they get any respect for it? Do we look at the "rednecks" and "hillbillies" of the world through eyes of admiration and reverence, knowing that their persistence and self-sacrifice are what grant us the privilege of living comfortably? Or do we dwell on how uneducated they are, calling them stupid, when, in reality, they are more in touch with the basic needs of humanity then we are? Relative to the practical efforts made by these hard workers, the concerns of an idealist or artist are, to put it bluntly, a waste of time.
My goal in exploring this topic is to ensure that we are keeping our priorities straight. Thinking and creating are great things to do, but we can't even begin to do that when we haven't taken care of our basic needs like food, water, shelter, security, and health. And if you intend to live a life in which you never have to maintain access to these basic needs for yourself and for others, you're going to struggle with your own self-entitlement. In reality, you are not entitled to these basic needs-- you need to seek them out yourself, unless you never plan on becoming self-sufficient. And seeking out these basic needs will mandate that you drop your connections to your internal artistic dream world. Depending on your natural attraction toward dreams and theory, your integration into society and understanding of the real steps necessary for supporting yourself may prove very difficult. But the sooner you shift to a more practical ideology, the sooner you will be able to achieve self-sufficiency, comfort, and, dare I say it, happiness. Because happiness isn't just a state of mind-- it's also affected by physical pleasure, and by the peace of mind that comes from knowing you have all of your practical needs in check. Confidence in your own ability to cover your own basic needs leads to a peace of mind at a level that's otherwise unattainable. And in any case, no one, no matter how they feel, is entitled to a life where all one thinks about is art, because no one is entitled to a life where all of one's basic needs are maintained for them. As you know, if you're an adult, it's no one else's job to take care of you. You need employment, and employers only pay people who provide skills that are needed. The skills that are needed, for the most part, are in industries oriented toward practical needs, unlike art. In conclusion, take it to heart that you probably won't be able to survive on the pittance you'll earn going into an art profession, because people don't need art like they need real, tangible support.
And even though artsy-types like hipsters aim to create a guise of philanthropy and caring for the world, there is nothing more selfish than choosing a life of artistic immersion. You can't call yourself a caring person if you don't know the first thing about caring about people, and that is: you have to give people what they need. Art is inherently something you feel like giving, rather than a response to the actual needs of others--no one involves themselves in art and music because they feel like they "have to." Don't give people what you feel like giving; you have to cater to their needs. No one wants to hear your alternative screamo-power-metal ballad that you taped in your studio apartment and defecated onto a CD. No lives are going to be spared because of the acoustic guitar song you wrote about Darfur, and no mouths are going to be fed thanks to your painting of the school in rural China; no power lines are going to be installed by posting on Facebook about your electric company, and no better shelters are going to be constructed for the people of the Amazon when you photograph a rural Brazilian shantytown. The people who really do good in this world aren't the people who sit around merely talking of what to do. The people who change this world are the ones who act. Let's take real action to create security, stop violence, feed children, build homes, provide utilities, and equip everyone with the real needs instead of doing what you feel like doing and mistakenly calling it "generosity".
And I know I'm not the most prolific provider of realistic goods and services for people, but at least I don't create drawings and things for the sake of my own catharsis and call it a productive career that I wish to engage in for the betterment of society. If you're a self-proclaimed artist, meaning that you mistakenly feel entitled to a life of doing whatever you want, you aren't fooling me. You're selfish, or else you have no grasp on what personal hardships need mitigation first because you're life was too darn easy. Let's take a look at the true harshness of reality. And let's pour our energy and compassion into the more practically responsible goals, shall we?
What do you hear when someone tells you that their primary goal in life is to be an artist? Do you bask in the revelry of being in the presence of a dreamer? Are you fascinated by the potential for this person to inspire you? Do you feel inadequate, thinking of how you wish you were creative enough to pursue your artistic dreams like the visionary before you? I don't anymore.
After your primary education, all maturing adults are eventually dumped into the "real world," as it's so called, in which we are forced, on our own, to achieve subsistence. Once can marvel at the vast variety of career options that lie about. As spoiled citizens of a developed country, we almost unanimously begin our career decisions by looking at these options in terms of what we want to do-- we ask ourselves, "which occupation is for me?"
Although children are always asked, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" another necessary question to ask yourself is, "what will the populace need from me when I grow up?" Jobs, for the most part, don't exist because we simply want them to; they exist because there's a need for them. Finding an occupation that suits you is made vastly easier by the existence of a great variation in demanded skills, but these skills exist on the basis of public need, not the people's entitlement to do whatever they want to do.
So if jobs are in existence because of need, we must, then, address what people need in the world. Take a look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs; society's foundation doesn't rely on art. The most basic human needs include food, water, shelter and clothing. Once those are established, we can move on to utilities, security, transportation, infrastructure, fire protection, communications, and things that are viewed as needs in a developed society but considered luxuries to the very poor. But the last thing on our list of needs, though it is still considered a "need" is self-fulfillment. This category contains all the things we use to reach for personal happiness and satisfaction that don't really affect the world at large. These are the things we reach for in order to achieve nothing more than physical and mental stimulation. These are things like art.
The first thing we consider when choosing our profession is our own selfish personal preferences; we don't start by considering the care demanded by those in our communities and across the world, which is actually the basis for all viable professions everywhere. So, by this notion, a choice to specialize in a field less needed by actual people is a choice made out of selfishness. In fact, I perceive a sense of arrogance whenever another person tells me that he or she is destined or intent to embark on a career of artistic exploration. A decision to place art at the topmost ranking priority is a blatant disregard of the needs of others, or it is a failure to understand which, of the various needs of the public, are more important. And a failure to understand the hierarchy of needs almost always stems from an ignorance that arises when a person has lived his or her entire life without a worry that their basic needs might not be met. A person who experiences hunger knows the vital importance of maintaining access to food. A person who experiences poverty knows the vital importance of maintaining a steady income. A person who experiences significant pain knows the importance of avoiding the mistakes they made to create that level of pain. Only once it is granted that hunger, pain, poverty, violence, theft, disease, and other horrors are all being consistently avoided, we can begin to consider giving mind to the sharing of ideas, art, music, and contributions to the entertainment industry. And by that logic, a person who spends their entire life immersed in art, music, and other entertainment, is a spoiled soul, never having to worry about the loss of their most basic necessities. A life of artistic creation, in which your self-identity is shaped primarily by theory, entertainment, and dreams, comes as a massive privilege. While most of society is providing the tangible necessities that we all need, the lucky few get to live a life of intellectual luxury, stewing in the juices of their own dreams. And a person who holds the belief that he or she deserves this life of luxury is an arrogant, entitled one.
The world needs you-- but the world needs particular things from you. The world doesn't need art; it needs care. The world has, first and foremost, needs that you may have never considered because you went your entire life without even considering the possibility of their absence. The world is like a baby crying, and a hungry baby won't be calming down anytime soon if all you do is show it a pretty picture. Give it nourishment, warmth, peace, and a place to sleep. Perhaps the greatest irony is when entitled snobs from high society look down on the people who give us the necessities we require most. We look down on the people who grow our food, take it to market, build our homes, pave our roads, and assemble our clothes. We scorn them, pity them, and call them "rednecks" and "foreigners." But these are the very people who breathe life into us. They don't tend to be the most intelligent. They don't tend to have the most informed political opinions. But they work for us in ways that the self-entitled, self-proclaimed "artist" never will. They suffer pain and hardship every single day, braving unsafe conditions and lackluster sleep schedules-- things that artistic spoiled brats couldn't even imagine as they sit on their laptop blogging (like I am now--yes, I am self-aware) sipping their Starbucks latte in the warm confines of their plush, comfortable furniture, away from the elements. Making fun of the people who provide the most basic necessities is so commonplace, yet their will to comply with doing the dirtier jobs is the very thing that even allows us to sit pretty and dream about frivolous things like our artistic creative visions-- and do they get any respect for it? Do we look at the "rednecks" and "hillbillies" of the world through eyes of admiration and reverence, knowing that their persistence and self-sacrifice are what grant us the privilege of living comfortably? Or do we dwell on how uneducated they are, calling them stupid, when, in reality, they are more in touch with the basic needs of humanity then we are? Relative to the practical efforts made by these hard workers, the concerns of an idealist or artist are, to put it bluntly, a waste of time.
My goal in exploring this topic is to ensure that we are keeping our priorities straight. Thinking and creating are great things to do, but we can't even begin to do that when we haven't taken care of our basic needs like food, water, shelter, security, and health. And if you intend to live a life in which you never have to maintain access to these basic needs for yourself and for others, you're going to struggle with your own self-entitlement. In reality, you are not entitled to these basic needs-- you need to seek them out yourself, unless you never plan on becoming self-sufficient. And seeking out these basic needs will mandate that you drop your connections to your internal artistic dream world. Depending on your natural attraction toward dreams and theory, your integration into society and understanding of the real steps necessary for supporting yourself may prove very difficult. But the sooner you shift to a more practical ideology, the sooner you will be able to achieve self-sufficiency, comfort, and, dare I say it, happiness. Because happiness isn't just a state of mind-- it's also affected by physical pleasure, and by the peace of mind that comes from knowing you have all of your practical needs in check. Confidence in your own ability to cover your own basic needs leads to a peace of mind at a level that's otherwise unattainable. And in any case, no one, no matter how they feel, is entitled to a life where all one thinks about is art, because no one is entitled to a life where all of one's basic needs are maintained for them. As you know, if you're an adult, it's no one else's job to take care of you. You need employment, and employers only pay people who provide skills that are needed. The skills that are needed, for the most part, are in industries oriented toward practical needs, unlike art. In conclusion, take it to heart that you probably won't be able to survive on the pittance you'll earn going into an art profession, because people don't need art like they need real, tangible support.
And even though artsy-types like hipsters aim to create a guise of philanthropy and caring for the world, there is nothing more selfish than choosing a life of artistic immersion. You can't call yourself a caring person if you don't know the first thing about caring about people, and that is: you have to give people what they need. Art is inherently something you feel like giving, rather than a response to the actual needs of others--no one involves themselves in art and music because they feel like they "have to." Don't give people what you feel like giving; you have to cater to their needs. No one wants to hear your alternative screamo-power-metal ballad that you taped in your studio apartment and defecated onto a CD. No lives are going to be spared because of the acoustic guitar song you wrote about Darfur, and no mouths are going to be fed thanks to your painting of the school in rural China; no power lines are going to be installed by posting on Facebook about your electric company, and no better shelters are going to be constructed for the people of the Amazon when you photograph a rural Brazilian shantytown. The people who really do good in this world aren't the people who sit around merely talking of what to do. The people who change this world are the ones who act. Let's take real action to create security, stop violence, feed children, build homes, provide utilities, and equip everyone with the real needs instead of doing what you feel like doing and mistakenly calling it "generosity".
And I know I'm not the most prolific provider of realistic goods and services for people, but at least I don't create drawings and things for the sake of my own catharsis and call it a productive career that I wish to engage in for the betterment of society. If you're a self-proclaimed artist, meaning that you mistakenly feel entitled to a life of doing whatever you want, you aren't fooling me. You're selfish, or else you have no grasp on what personal hardships need mitigation first because you're life was too darn easy. Let's take a look at the true harshness of reality. And let's pour our energy and compassion into the more practically responsible goals, shall we?
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Things That Don't Need To Be Thought About
It took long enough, but I'm finally starting to learn a skill that many people across the world are innately born with. People all across the world are perfectly okay becoming the cogs in our great worldwide economic machine. That fact is something that needs to be true, and it's rather fantastic that it is. We owe everything to the people who grow our food, make our clothes, build our infrastructure, and manufacture all kinds of goods. And all of these people probably had big dreams to become something else, something super-special. But they all put aside their lofty dreams of becoming rock stars and world leaders to sacrifice their time, so that we can all benefit.
These aren't the die-hard artists, the starry-eyed seers of the future. These are just normal people who live in the moment and take the world for what it is. They aren't the strongest creative minds the world has to offer. They aren't the ones who study the world at length and formulate theories and pedagogy for other theoretical minds to consume in a college classroom. They're just people, making the world happen. They aren't the brightest, but in one way, they're more capable than my inventive and tragically active mind...
As some pretentious intellectuals will scorn those with an absence of thought, I look at those capable of mental blankness with uncontrollable envy. At certain times, I find myself wishing I could just stop thinking about certain things, because some things don't need to be given any thought. Terrible things happen every day, and horrifying global trends continue their tragic descent; whether on a personal or global level, when a bad occurrence is out of my control, there is nothing productive about ruminating on it for an extensive length of time. And while training my brain to avoid dwelling on such perilous thoughts is a difficult goal for me, the people who accept life at face value without any advanced thought don't find difficulty in this. I wish it were easier, and for most people, it actually is. I wouldn't give up my perfectly capable mind for any reason, but I can't help but covet the luxury of deciding not to think of something if I don't want to think about it.
These aren't the die-hard artists, the starry-eyed seers of the future. These are just normal people who live in the moment and take the world for what it is. They aren't the strongest creative minds the world has to offer. They aren't the ones who study the world at length and formulate theories and pedagogy for other theoretical minds to consume in a college classroom. They're just people, making the world happen. They aren't the brightest, but in one way, they're more capable than my inventive and tragically active mind...
As some pretentious intellectuals will scorn those with an absence of thought, I look at those capable of mental blankness with uncontrollable envy. At certain times, I find myself wishing I could just stop thinking about certain things, because some things don't need to be given any thought. Terrible things happen every day, and horrifying global trends continue their tragic descent; whether on a personal or global level, when a bad occurrence is out of my control, there is nothing productive about ruminating on it for an extensive length of time. And while training my brain to avoid dwelling on such perilous thoughts is a difficult goal for me, the people who accept life at face value without any advanced thought don't find difficulty in this. I wish it were easier, and for most people, it actually is. I wouldn't give up my perfectly capable mind for any reason, but I can't help but covet the luxury of deciding not to think of something if I don't want to think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)