Look at the trees, look at the birds, look at the clouds, look at the stars… and if you have eyes you will be able to see that the whole existence is joyful. Everything is simply happy. Trees are happy for no reason; they are not going to become prime ministers or presidents and they are not going to become rich and they will never have any bank balance. Look at the flowers - for no reason. It is simply unbelievable how happy flowers are.
~ Osho
(via alanajoy)
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square hole. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
By cme on July 25, 2010 9:57 PM
“How do [corporatist] politicians win support from voters whose own wages and safety are threatened?”
They do it like this: LOOK OVER THERE, SOME GAY GUYS GETTING MARRIED, ISN’T THAT GROSS?!?
“How do [corporatist] politicians win support from voters whose own wages and safety are threatened?”
They do it like this: LOOK OVER THERE, SOME GAY GUYS GETTING MARRIED, ISN’T THAT GROSS?!?
When classifying myself an idealist or a pragmatist, I reflect that the answer was probably certain at birth.
Posted July 19, 2010 at 8:50pm
chess is fun if you know you have a shot at winning. i just won three in a row against the mac computer player, at the lowest setting.
Not that I am just messing around; I have an inferiority complex around chess. I was smart, but didn’t care much for practicing. As a result I frequently lost against more mature players. Now I’m a bit afraid to even start a game. This is more of a temporary confidence builder. I’m sure it will be more interesting anyway to play at the highest level I have a shot at.
Posted July 18, 2010 at 1:48am
perennial sow thistle
we have a ton of these in our back yard, I just discovered. I was looking for a different but similar weed that I have yet to identify; but having sent the web page to my iphone and with flashlight in hand I went outside in the dark to verify or condemn my initial hypothesis. we also have some chicory in the gaps between our cement in the back.
this is a fun reason to let a few weeds grow in your garden, if they’re not interfering with anything: it takes quite a bit of scientific examination and research to figure out what they are (if you’re completely ignorant about these things, like me).
Posted July 17, 2010 at 11:55pm
sorry about all the socratic shit. it’s been a weird night; many atypical human interactions at a very rapid pace.
Posted July 16, 2010 at 10:46pm
is nihilism really self-destructive if your world is poisoned? if what you destroy is only an empty, dead-end mode of living? i say that it can then transform into a source of redemption through suffering; an easing of guilt and ritual of passage.
Posted July 16, 2010 at 10:22pm
What is mindlessness? Is it ignorance, apathy, indolence, escapism? I submit that regardless of what your politics are (I’m a socialist), the key is to destroy these. Then whatever is truly a step forward as a species can be achieved. The truly pivotal conversation cannot begin unless it is done, because we have to all be committed.
That reminds me of a story once told to me by a substitute teacher. He was in his forties, graying, and had a very deliberately peaceful manner. As he spent time with our class, he told one or two stories that were taken from his experiences in (as we concluded) the Vietnam War. Fascinated by war and too young to really feel its horrors, I approached him one day and asked for a story from his time in the military.
He appeared reluctant, as though he was afraid of being too graphic or of glamorizing the tragedy. He asked me why I wanted a war story and I couldn’t say. I felt embarrassed and ashamed for asking him after I saw the way he initially responded.
He thought for a second and then said, “I remember a time when I was in the jungle, crouched behind a small thicket with my radio. There was gunfire right over my head, and I was surrounded, so I called in for air support.
“An air strike was ordered, and I was put into communication with the pilot of the jet. When I was telling him the exact areas where I knew fire was coming from, he replied cooly, almost nonchalant.
“And then I realized the difference between being involved and being committed.”
Posted July 16, 2010 at 10:14pm
Listen for these during your next conversation:
C1: Collaboration
D1: Diffusing (calming)
F1: Frustration
I1: Interrogative
K1: Combative
J1: Joking
J2: Joker response to laughter
L1: Laughter
Lc2: Cautious laughter
Lu3: Unbelieving laughter
P1: Preaching
S1: Storytelling
More of these verbal exchange classifications to come.
I was once a research assistant for a professor who taught business law at a prominent b-school. He was discussing the Bhopal tragedy in class one day while I sat in, and he asked this hypothetical question of his shiny MBA students: “Ok, you’re in charge at Union Carbide, and you get that horrible phone call. What do you do first?”
I thought mistakenly that this was more of a rhetorical question.
The first student answered: “You launch an internal investigation.”
The second student answered: “You need to meet with PR and release a statement.”
The third student answered: “You get on the phone with Legal!”
I was a friend of this professor, since I’d worked for him for about a year. I could see the look on his face: a look of utter disappointment.
“The correct answer,” he chastized, “is to pull together as many resources as you can to help those poor people as quickly as possible.”
I know this is anecdotal, but I fail to see any difference between the bright, young managers in that class and the managers you see everywhere in large corporations. With their activities psychologically divorced from their own conscience, with only a tiny picture of the way their minor actions as employees contribute to major negative effects on the world, and with little legal liability, it’s easy to see how otherwise good people could participate in a system like this.
If I had to say what society should look like, it would be a lot smaller; closer to a Jeffersonian agrarian state, but with modern science (thanks due to corporations here for funding a decent chunk of that). Privately owned businesses and partnerships would be enough to sustain a smaller population, and are far less ripe for abuse. Certainly rich individuals could still gain monopolies, so standard regulations would be in place to prevent unhealthy supply-side leverage; however their personal liability would be enormous, and I think this would lead to a natural shrinking in the size and scope of the largest businesses.
