When I am working and ask if I can help and the customer responds automatically with "No, I'm fine." When really what they want is for someone to help them find the thing they are looking for but they don't want anyone to think that they are helpless, weak, or can't find it on their own. Inevitably, within a few seconds, they raise my attention with, "Actually, where is the so and so?"
Sometimes I smile when I filled with a sense of ego. When I accomplish something difficult or figure something out that is meaningful, or when someone says that I did a good job. I am consumed by a sense of pride and confidence. I smile and look inward to congratulate myself. "What a good job I have done!" "They like me!" Then I am struck by another thought and I smile to myself and I accept my pride and release the feeling of ego and move on with life. If I allow myself to live in the past accomplishments I will have a harder time recognizing the current experience and become distracted from those around me who rely on my judgment and expertise. If I forget those around me in pursuit of prolonging my sense of self-worth then I forget to treat people as I would prefer to be treated. I prefer to those around me to acknowledge my existence and be present around me. I want to be a part of their world, not a ghost adjacent.
My longing to be perfect is a reflection of my dysfunctional ego. An ego that will not be satisfied with anything less than perfection creates an endless cycle of failure. Instead of being satisfied with improvement with an upward trajectory, an inflated ego demands a level of expertise that is only afforded to those that are practiced, educated, and experienced, and only to varying degrees regardless of said experience.
I get nervous before I stream myself live, offer my opinions to superiors, or try to impress loved ones. I want to control the perception of others in a way that makes me think that they think that I am awesome. That I am wise, courageous, strong, funny, healthy, sexy, and all other archetypes of awesomeness. When I am nervous I forget to be in the moment and I forget to focus on the task at hand. In the back of my mind, I am imagining those that are watching me and attempting to will them into seeing me in a positive light.
This is illogical for many reasons. Firstly, I am incapable of accurately predicting the thoughts of others. Secondly, I have no control over and shouldn't require control over the thoughts of others. Thirdly, I have to accept that not all people will like me, hate me, love me, think about me, forget me, know me and in fact, most people will never think about me at all. Even those who have met me will rarely think of me twice. And my best friends, family members, and lovers will only think of me occasionally and with only a small fragment of an accurate impression of myself.
My ego allows me to spite others for not caring enough about me. When I choose not to call a friend and use the excuse that they haven't called me in "who knows how long" or when I say to myself, "if they wanted to talk to me they would call me." My ego tells me that in order to be my friend you have to put in the same amount of effort I put in so when my friends don't put in the effort it is simply a reflection of my effort. My ego tells me that if I text them first then I am the weak one.
My ego makes me want to show how amazing I am by working harder than anyone else, even though I am lazier than I could be, waste plenty of time, and only marginally work toward bettering myself. When I judge others as being lazy because they don't answer a phone I don't want to answer. When I look around at everyone and think "these lazy fucks!".
I am full of shit.
Any desire that is born simply for the need to impress others is shallow and elusive. To understand what others want one would have to constantly be probing and questioning those around them to gain insight into what might impress others. To make your parents proud you have to constantly be assessing their pride in your deeds, or lack of deeds. Maybe your parents are elusive as well. They disguise their pride and your ego becomes lost and confused.
Roles:
The ego is an expression of the collective idealism you create around the perception of yourself. The ideal self is postulated within the mind and over time it evolves. Whenever you contemplate yourself as being in alignment with your perceived ideal self your ego is satisfied.
Be wary of the ideal self as this is generated with others in mind. We generate and develop our conception of ourselves by comparing ourselves to those around us. We impersonate, mimic, and react to the world and we are shaped by its actions. We are told who we are by witnessing the world. We know we are human because other humans look the same and identify as humans. Are parents and siblings become role models and we become like them. Adapting and surviving. But we are not them and so we take different paths and soon we learn of the paths of many others. Through stories, we learn about the lives of others and we incorporate those archetypes into our bank of lives to emulate. "I like that person. I don't like that person." We identify allies and enemies by taking sides in stories and justifying actions. We place ourselves into the story and take on the roles of its characters. We imagine living the lives of these characters and
These stories are ancient but in the age of information, the stories are overwhelming. From before we are alive we are inflicted with stories. Many of them that are purposely unrealistic in a way that clouds the mind with counterfactuals and contrivances. (This has been an attempt to get the word contrivances into a sentence.)
We can't trust the news to tell us what is really going on.
Politicians attempt to convince others that they are the hero in a virtue story. A story about how people should act. A story about how people should try to help others. A story about service and chastity. A story about trust and courage. These are just stories. They are not real. Politicians are professional administrators with jobs related to spending the public's money. They determine their own salaries, bonuses, and benefits.
There are no roles. Your life is not a story. You are an ape on Earth, on your way to death while witnessing the deaths of those around you. You didn't choose to be born and you will most likely remain ignorant to anything deeply true in the universe. You will only tenuously grasp reality and mostly fumble along getting by on sheer momentum, determination, and luck.
Luck is another word for ignorance. Luck is not knowing the causal link from an outcome to its salient cause. Luck is seeing a result without seeing the effort put into it. It is assigning positive or negative value based on its relative benefit to the individual.
Some people think that talking about suicide will cause more suicide. I doubt it. The thing that causes more suicides is indifference, hate, and physiology. Abuse and neglect. Biological abnormalities and shitty luck cause suicides. Talking about suicide or joking about suicide doesn't cause suicide. Not any more than talking about violence causes violence. Talking about something removes the burden of trying to ignore it. Maybe talking about why we don't talk about suicide from more angles will help us see it more clearly. Here are some angles.
Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they are superstitious. They think that talking about something makes it occur. I suppose there is a kernel of truth in the idea that concepts can influence behavior but the idea that saying a word would cause the universe to focus on persecuting you is irrational. The universe doesn't have you in mind because it is not conscious and you are not that special.
Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they are afraid of their own thoughts of suicide and they are trying to suppress them.
Maybe people don't talk about suicide because they have known someone who committed suicide and they are traumatized by the experience. Now the word brings up terror and they can not engage in a nonemotional conversation about suicide. The whole concept is tainted with direct personal experience. I'm not sure but I think if someone can accept and get past having someone close commit suicide the person might be able to communicate to others how devastating it is and how if someone is thinking about committing suicide they should not dismiss the effect it might have on others. Many people care more about those around them than themselves and if they were truly alone they might kill themself but it's knowing that others care enough to cry at your loss that you feel that you might be able to handle another day.
Maybe people don't want to talk about suicide because they can empathize with those that have contemplated it and also with those that have attempted it or I suppose succeeded in it but can you sympathize with a dead person? I think you can if you know anything about them. Knowing something about a person can help you create a story around the person. One that you can identify with and allows you to place them in your worldview. This also allows you to make value judgments on the person, whether accurate or not. Maybe empathizing too much makes you think about killing yourself, which is disturbing and therefore you do not want to entertain the idea of suicide.
(Can you sympathize with random unknown people that you know nothing about? Maybe you can empathize with them as what they have done is modeled in the mind and mirror neurons mimic the perceived emotional and physiological state of the person, but I'm not sure if that is sympathy.)
Maybe people don't talk about suicide because most people have had only a small amount of suicidal thoughts and it is only a small proportion of people who have severe enough thoughts to actually do it. This might cause people to dismiss the issue as not significant. There are plenty of other things to talk about than suicide, which is mostly unpleasant to contemplate anyway. Why talk about unpleasant topics?
If we all accepted that a great deal of the population has varying levels of suicidal thoughts then maybe we could be more open about our personal thoughts about suicide and then maybe we could talk about suicide enough that it becomes less taboo and easier to talk about in general. By lessening the stigma it might become easier to ask for help.
Maybe people think if we don't talk about it it will go away.
Maybe people think that if someone they know commits suicide it might be their fault? Maybe they think that the way they treated that person could have been better or they were cruel to that person and so talking about suicide means admitting their own feelings of guilt. Maybe people secretly wish for the suicide of someone else and they feel guilty about it. Or they secretly feel comradery with the suicidal person but condemn it outwardly in order to hide their shame.
Maybe people are afraid to talk about suicide because they are simply afraid of death in general. To these people maybe any contemplation of death is too hard to cope with and suicide adds a layer of horror. The fear of death is certainly pervasive but it is such an unknown that I would rather concentrate on life, even when life is hard to handle.
I remember when I found out that Robin Williams committed suicide and my first thought was not one of sadness or scorn but instead I imagined a man that finally took control over his life and made a decision that was his to make. I appreciate Robin Williams very much as an entertainer and I look up to him as a role model for comedic self-expression but I didn't know him personally and my projection onto his suicide was just a reaction. It didn't involve much thought about what his suicide would do to his family and how much the world would miss out on without him around to entertain us. It was only later that I cried thinking about how sad he must have been to commit suicide and how much I loved his presence in my life.
It is selfish to commit suicide but it is also selfish to keep someone from doing it for the sake of your own desire to enjoy their company or not feel sad. Ultimately people are responsible for their own bodies and life and it is up to them to decide what they do with it. It is also up to those around you to choose to help when you are feeling terrible. You can't always convince someone they are loved and you can't always convince yourself that others love you. Depression is a very powerful psychological state that can not always be turned around with love and drugs.
Suicide is something that I have contemplated in my life and I have had people around me that have attempted it. To live in a world where suicide exists can seem confusing and cruel but it is not a new phenomenon and it is not going away anytime soon. If someone wants to kill themself they can. It isn't that hard. Humans are squishy meat sacks full of blood that are constantly on the precipice of death. Every time you get into a car or step into the shower you risk the wrath of entropy and the chaos of uncertainty and ultimately death finds you. You already face death every day so why should suicide be so scary or so obscure?
Maybe if we talk about it enough we'll find it's not that interesting?
There's no reason to think that people are able to remember everything they think about. We are constantly going through internal ruminations, whether we are paying attention to them or not. I don't think that the internal monologue is something that we turn on and off at will or consciously. I'm not sure if the stream of consciousness that is verbal is always running but when it is running our focus on it fluctuates. Sometimes one can really focus on observing the random thoughts that happen inside the mind. Sometimes one can direct the stream and try to focus where it goes. Sometimes one is completely unable to grasp the internal messages.
Have you ever felt that when you forget whether or not you locked the door it's because you're not sure if you remember locking it just now or the 50 other times you locked it before? Habitual behaviors become automatic. You don't know you're doing them. This might be the same about thoughts in that some thoughts you have so often that you forget that you had them. For example, when you drive toward your old house because you have gone that way so many times your subconscious, which directs your actions, now just goes there unless consciously directed otherwise. Before you realize it you're already there. This habituation only occurs after one has deliberately directed consciousness repeatedly. One can create these habituations consciously but once it becomes a habit one can forget their role in its creation.
Maybe one becomes distracted from their internal monologue long enough to forget it exists. It's still somewhere softly analyzing and contemplating in the background. Maybe one is imagining how the next day will develop while watching a TV show. Their mind is only taking in stimulus but every so often their stream of consciousness breaks through and one is interrupted by an already occurring mental conversation. You pick up a few things about going to your favorite restaurant but then you get distracted again and it's such a mundane thought you disregard it. Then, the next day, when internally debating where to eat you decide to go to your favorite restaurant. The decision was actually decided by yourself long before you realize it. Or at least it was primed. Like when someone tells you the wrong lyric and when you hear the song you can't hear anything other than the wrong word that sounds correct now.
Can one take credit for the forgotten conscious influences one inflicts on one's self? The forgotten fleeting thoughts that are like dreams. Whispy like fog. Like when the right word is on the tip of your tongue. In the back of your mind. Consciousness is like a river in that it is always changing and one day it will not be in the same place. Is it still the same river? Are you responsible for the changes?
Am I a product of only deterministic scientific happenstance? Causes and effects that are completely out of my control? If it is possible to willfully create habituation then it would provide a mechanism for free will to manifest itself in reality and not just in concept. If this mechanism is real then that would mean that it exists within the nervous system and is theoretically identifiable. If free will is a physical reality then determinism has a flaw. This would introduce some amount of unpredictability when it comes to assuming that the future is a series of determined, and predictable causes and effects.
But what about the thoughts that cause the habituation; how can these thoughts be justified if they just erupt out of nowhere? How can free will be proven if the proposed mechanism relies on thoughts that emerge due to the prior causes that are determined by physics? If thoughts are not purely a reaction to the current environment then maybe thoughts arise as a direct result of a free will mechanism that is not verbal, or has become subconscious prior to being verbal?
Maybe the first few years of childhood is a period where a system starts to develop that allows for self-observation and mental manipulation. As the system for self-directed behavior matures the person is consciously learning how to learn, how to speak, how to listen to themself, how the world works, how to imagine multiple outcomes, and how to choose different directions. This system of different sectors of the brain networking together to create something new allows for the development of consciousness and the potential for free will.
As time passes the act of willful self-determination becomes almost entirely habitual and because humans do not develop the concept of consciousness until later in life the subjective perspective that includes both the verbal and nonverbal streams of consciousnesses we collectively call consciousness is almost indescribable. The brain is both emotional and intellectual and yet its functions are elusive to the observer. The system becomes habitual enough at an early enough age that the experience of directing our bodies is forgotten. It goes underground but still provides a mechanism for free will.
As language develops a child begins to incorporate verbal communication into the preexisting paradigm. Self-expression begins to become codified, constrained, and efficiently communicable. As one interacts with reality and develops a language to communicate with others one begins to see the world in a different way. In a way that is constrained by language. When one is aware of one's own attempts to direct one's own path via the verbal route then consciousness becomes possible to communicate about but is not the sole arbiter of free action.
In order to understand this concept of a mechanism, rooted in consciousness, that allows for free will one has to overcome the habituation process and redirect the flow of verbal consciousness, knowing that it isn't the only controlling factor. Learning to control one's emotions becomes another skill in strengthening the potential for free will. Another skill that is needed is the ability to examine past failings and plan to correct them with repetitive thoughts and actions.
If one finds that every time they encounter a certain emotionally distressing situation they act in a way that is dysfunctional then they can make a plan to change how they think about this situation, how they act before, during, and after the situation occurs, and try to understand the underlying emotional states that the situation produces. The more one is self-aware the more they can alter the way they react to situations or attempt to avoid them altogether. This kind of self-awareness is not entirely concerned with internal states but also takes into account the environment that they exist within. The ability to engage in free will is tempered by a person's understanding of everything that can and will affect them.
The concept of responsibility is not the same as the concept of free will. People are responsible for their actions, generally speaking, regardless of the perception that they are in control of their actions. A drunk person is responsible for the consequences of their actions just as a psychotic person is responsible for the consequences of their actions. They may not have any insight into the conscious thoughts that existed prior to or during the act but from the perspective of others, they are the ones to blame. They are the ones to set apart and deal with. Attempting to accept all actions as a matter of fate is a recipe for chaos and discounts the ability of people to control themselves, even without a well developed moral system or strengthened free will.
In conclusion, in regard to thoughts, we are mostly unaware. When we are aware we have an opportunity to self-direct and with enough repetition, we can create new automatic or partially automatic habits. We can consciously control unconscious behaviors through this process. I postulate that before language this ability may have been more open to us and over time our subconscious takes more and more control. Our relationship to consciousness changes as we acquire language. Or maybe it is only after we acquire sophisticated language and maturity that we start to be able to review our thoughts and bring them into some kind of control. It is difficult to halt the momentum of cause and effect that propels us forward but if one can reflect on and redirect their thoughts they just might be able to make lasting change in how they think, how they act, and who they are.
I have a deep fear that I will die and there will be nothing left of me to live on. Something that might impact and affect future humans in a way that validates some of the things I've accomplished.
I can imagine a world where I am known and well regarded. A world where my personal impression lives on after I die, like the many famous people that I know and continue to learn about after their deaths. Ideally, I would die having made an impact on the world and in so doing give myself a modicum of infamy.
I am just realizing that this ideation is most likely the result of a lifetime among televisions. There have always been famous people. Aristocrats, actors, musicians, royals, politicians, clergymen, military heroes, and the like have always existed in large enough agricultural societies. Even without agriculture, tribal peoples would tell stories of heroes and gods and spirits that one would look up to.
While all these people represent some kind of transcendence from the poor, infirm or otherwise lowly existence that the majority inhabit, these roles were not typically within the reach of the masses. Children in the 17th century were not hopeful that they would become anything other than something close to what their father did. They might have wondered at stories of heroes and gods but were not subjected to the mundane infamy of the modern world.
Today, the world's opinions are on display for the world. Experts and novices teaching beside each other and with no oversight. Crazies and geniuses and everyone in between showing us "what they've got!" "Cash me outside," has left its mark on the world and it is hard not to feel that if someone as low as those that are featured on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich are making their marks in some small ways. If we consider anyone who is online socially as capable of generating fame then fame itself is a measure of potential infamy. Extended fame is really the goal of online expression because if your mark lasts then it is assumed that your mark is meaningful.
The future of education had better include how to use the internet to your advantage or else people will be swallowed up in its web of influence and exploitation. It can also be a comforting couch of convenience and decadence. Everything at your hand and your whole life stuck in the world as a set of profiles and visual media.
But what about the futility of fame? In time all information is degraded and eventually lost then why is it so appealing? I think it is related to the initial need for procreation. Fame's appeal is the same appeal that comes to the deep desire to have our genes live on in our progeny. More specifically it is intertwined with the need to stand out and ascend in a hierarchy where the higher the status the more likely the individual will successfully mate and see their offspring live on. So, it all comes down to sex, like so many behaviors.
For one that prides themself on their ability to express themself, it seems like a failure to not do so publicly. To show one's self to the world is a badge of honor and to show up in a trending list means the eyes of the world are upon you. For good or bad you have been seen. Like in Avatar, we just want to be seen. I just want to be seen. To be seen and appreciated. To be validated by the world. For the world to look at you and give you an uplifting nod.
The need for attention comes from at least two areas, cultural influences and a lack of bonding with parents. I do not want to blame all parents as for some the need for attention can never be satiated, not even by those with well adjusted and affectionate parents. I do not believe myself to be within that camp but I do not care to blame anyone for my self diagnosed issues in a perhaps failed attempt at self psychoanalysis. My need for attention might just be due to my lack of identifying a mainstream vocation that I find satisfying and therefore must look to other means for purpose, namely expressing myself and hoping that someone finds it valuable or at the least interesting.
I do think that the greater one's desire for fame the greater their need for validation. This may be due to a lack of acceptance and validation from childhood or it could be due to a predisposition toward narcissism or any number of things.
Living in a culture where thousands and thousands of people make a living expressing their opinions on the internet makes it seem like if your not making a living expressing yourself you're working too hard and are just another "cog" in the wheel.
I have no children. I have no real money.
The only reason to feel bad about these facts is that I have a desire for these things. I am not sure which one I want more but I do know that some parts of me feel that children and money are a necessary part of seeing myself as an actualized person. I have manufactured a typical American fantasy despite the fact that my parents failed to represent but somehow has been engrained as a norm. Although they both do have a decent amount of money. At least they do now.
My father never made much money on his own and I know that a great deal of my desire for money has to do with my desire to not be like my father but he did marry two women who have been able to acquire quite a lot of money respectively. In fact his current wife, not my mother, probably makes more money than his second wife, meaning that he traded up in a completely lame and unplanned way. Hopefully unplanned.
If you haven't done something notable enough to make some local media feature or participated in a viral video or gained enough subscribers to exist as an independent contractor then you aren't that interesting. If you aren't interesting then what's the point?
Maybe these are the worries of someone whose life is too easy to warrant any real discomfort or discipline. Maybe this is a cultural impression that I am simply orienting myself to. Maybe it is simply pride and narcissism that I engage in and should work toward feeling contentment in the simple act of existence and stop seeking fame for the sake of superficial attention. Maybe the monk that seeks enlightenment from a lack of desire is on the road toward enlightenment. I doubt it. I think the real answer is acceptance and balance.
In the creation of expressive art, one should start with themselves and the personal expression and then see what happens when they share such things. If it is meaningful to the self then it might resonate and find value in others. The real key is not putting the cart before the horse, putting the desire for validation before the expression. The idea that fame creates legitimacy is erroneous and simplistic. No one is legitimate or illegitimate. Value is subjective which means that it depends on the evaluator. Maybe a happy life is living based on one's internally generated values instead of trying to adapt to everyone else's idea of
This doesn't mean that one shouldn't cater to others for the sake of money or some other end. There are plenty of people who do not seek fame or validation through social interaction. People who exist with no desire to express themselves to the world and feel no malaise when the world doesn't care about them. Family, friends, work, and hobbies do not require an extended interaction with the outside world and hold deep meaning for those content with such activities. Maybe those that seek attention should remember not to neglect the simple satisfactions that accrue when one attends to those around them.
There is also a kind of dual outcome to fame which is when the endeavors that result in fame are originally intended to help others. This might be in the realms of education, innovation and personal expression of all sorts. The idea that one's public expressions are put out into the world for the sake of others. This is both selfish and selfless. Someone has to have some sense of self-worth and confidence to think that they have something to offer others and this desire, while seemingly noble, has the added bonus of attracting attention and potential fame. It is the most righteous fame because it hides behind the selfless deed and makes one a kind of saint but it should not be forgotten that those that seek to help others often know that the result may be that of acclaim.
This is not a bad thing in that if there were no positive results from helping other people would have little incentive to do so and therefor those that help others should be given public acclaim. This is really only useful if the public knows the difference between what provides actual help and what acts are designed to give the impression of selflessness. The real challenge to audiences, in a world of infinite choices, is to not waste attention on worthless or deceitful people or to call them out. Now, this requires a certain amount of intelligence and control and ultimately up to the individual based on their subjective values and knowledge.
Maturing is more a matter of accepting yourself instead of fighting self-imposed and needless idealism. Instead of constantly judging myself against the achievements of others I should simply continue working on doing what makes me feel fulfilled, meaningful and happy.
I suppose most of my life I've been a little depressed. Not enough to warrant any one's attention. Just enough to dwindle away any remaining hope, pride or confidence from a once playful child. A once hopeful squirt.
Along the way and at no time, in particular, the lust for life and all it could offer subsided. Reality set in hard and with little push back from myself and for Reality, it was easy to interject a little taste of spiteful consequence into an already uncertain world.
Ahead, I only saw chaos and unpredictability. All I saw was my own failure, greed and no one to make proud, least of all myself. Who am I to demand such things of myself? Am I not just another human, doomed to a life on this earthly hell? With torments within and torments abroad.
The world, seeking to destroy you throws death and confusion at you. So you accept your fate. I told myself I was just another in a long line of worthless humans. No more important than the distant stars, a speck of dust on the planet. With no God and no one to impress and no chance for greatness, why even try?
In the background of my mind negativity was always there, demanding more and expecting less. Never enough and never to anywhere. I thrived amidst the opportunities afforded. Blessed and cursed by the world's prescribed options. Adrift and ashamed.
I am still ashamed of my lack of fortitude and passion. I am still ashamed when I find myself following someone undeserving of my loyalty. But it is not the case that I am just a cog and it is not the case that I have no choices. I have consequences to conjure and futures to inspire.
It is the case that I can accept my frailties and work toward improving the best aspects of myself. To take on tasks that improve my attitude, my mood and that create confidence. The ones that help me appreciate life and find joy. Activities and indulgences that I can take pride in even if I'm not always willing to divulge them to others.
There are positive and negative behavioral feedback loops that one engages in whether one is paying attention or not. If one is paying attention and wants the depression to lessen then it makes sense that one should engage in activities that promote positive psychological feedback.
A great book that I read that facilitated my acceptance of my current state and empowered my dedication to make my life better is called The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem by Nathaniel Brandon. Another book I read that helped me rethink my relationships with others is called Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love by Stephan Molyneux. After reading these books I came away with actionable steps to take control over my life in a way that I didn't know was possible beforehand. I started to look at my life as something to be taken seriously as a limited resource that was worth investing in. For more on this topic read my blog about losing 45 lbs and why as well as other blogs about personal development.
Even after about five years of a concerted effort to no longer treat myself as a worthless meat-sac I still get depressed and still, my depression takes the form of a subtle, yet persistent pessimism, nihilism, and doubt. A voice inside my head that looks at my accomplishments, skills, and humanity and judges it all as a pointless endeavor unworthy of continuance. I stop writing, stop learning, stop appreciating myself and I start to doubt that I am worthy of any effort at all. Fortunately, as time goes by and I work at improving my self-esteem these bouts of depression are fewer and far between and I hope that in time positivity and enthusiasm will take on a more dominant role in my psychology.
Someone once told me that the world is upside down but our minds correct this and we see the world right-side up. Sky side up. This is not true. The world is right-side up and our eyeballs are curved like a crystal ball that focuses light onto the retina. The resulting image is a projection of the world-oriented upside down because of curvature. The brain does not care that the image is physically disjointed from reality because it can represent the data in almost any orientation. It just so happens that the most adaptive way to represent this data is in a way that doesn't disorient us and lead to injuries; right side up.
What if I told you that the world around you was actually made up of large waves. The floor that seems so flat and straight that you stand on every day is actually undulating and flowing like a steady wave swishing against the rocks. That your mind, from birth, has been correcting for this odd state of nature by filtering out the extraneous oscillations of matter and straightening the world out. Making it useful. Coping with reality for pragmatic purposes the mind manipulates and interprets the universe in a way that "makes sense".
What if I told you that as your mind was forming in the womb you began to see the world as it is; an infinite amalgam, a gelatinous kaleidoscope, a soupy stew of chemistry in motion. Molecules bursting and reforming. Absorption and osmosis. Cell division and quantum entanglement. All there before your eyes. Your skin was not a barrier but instead, it was a fine cheesecloth where molecular bodies eloped. In your ears, you heard the soft whispers of reality as it vibrated and cajoled.
Then, as time went by and the mind developed you slowly morphed the world around you by integrating and discerning inputs. Separating and combining elements and discovering patterns. Your mind, like the universe, churned and moved, creating its own perception of reality. And after birth, you continued to straighten out the world. Soon you learned a language, making the whole endeavor more complicated, rewarding and troublesome. Some are better than others at interacting with reality. Some attempt to probe its deepest mysteries. Some reach for the stars. Most don't care.
None of this is true, of course. You were never able to perceive the quantum world or cell division. As the brain developed it slowly began to perceive the environment from a more macro perspective. Our sensory organs are limited to certain biological parameters. These dictate the range of sensory data we can imbibe and modulate its representation. The size and shape of an eye, for instance, limits its magnification and focusing of light, its field of view and the number of and type of components, ie rods and cones, and potential nerve sites.
But reality is an undulating molasses of possibilities flowing about in front of your face. Our bodies are made up of the most complex set of biological structures, which are all composed of undulating quantum probabilities. Sometimes, with the help of drugs or other tools, we witness a bit of what the world would look like if we could perceive the quantum world. Reality would bend and sway. It would disassemble and reassemble before you.
I used to work for a large video game store. One where you might Stop to buy Games. I mostly sold bullshit. Grown men coming up and saying "I wanna pretend I'm driving a car. Is there a game for that?" Pretending and having imaginary friends was once relegated to children but now, it seems, that children do not grow up. Looking for any excuse to feel accomplishment in virtual worlds to distract from the reality of a failure to accomplish personal goals is the purview of men who've been neglected by their parents and devalued by society. Getting self-esteem from simulated successes creates a fog of delusion that, if cleared away, reveals an inflated ego ready to burst.
Finding camaraderie in a chat box and slaying imaginary enemies feels good but when the electricity turns off and the mind is still what is left?
I am not immune to such imaginings but I am skeptical of my attachment to the medium. As I have aged I find myself getting less and less fulfillment out of video games. At times in my life I would spend 2-4 hours a day, 7 days a week immersed in sculpting the imaginary life of a digital avatar but lately, I find that this pursuit has much less appeal. While, even now, I spend some time each week playing Dark Souls 3 or some other engrossing game, it is significantly less than in the past. I'm finding now that if I spend more then a few hours a week playing a game I feel guilty.
I do watch television a lot but there seems to be a disconnect between an interactive medium and the one-sided nature of non-interactive art forms such as film and TV. When you are a passive observer it is harder to get wrapped up in the accomplishments of others. These forms rely on the empathy of the viewer to relate with the emotion on the screen where video games place you in an active role giving you a sense of control and the ability to manipulate outcomes and solve problems.
As much as I feel that video games can be a huge distraction, it is certainly not the worst activity and I shouldn't give myself too hard of a time about something that I get enjoyment out of and a sense of identity to some degree. Being a "gamer" isn't a bad thing but for some reason, I am not committed to the "cause", whatever that means. With such an easy life and so much abundant wealth, it is no wonder that so many are able to have such enticing and satisfying experiences in the safety of their own homes. No longer does one need to venture out into the world for glory and heroics. They can do it from their couch.
The problem with the story of Jesus and any other Hero stories is that we start looking for them in real people today. We look at famous people and categorize them as either the Hero or the Villain because we're so used to integrating stories into our thinking and communication. The truth is that real people are almost never all good or all bad. Stories try to simplify morality in a way that is easy to understand for many ages. The simplest and most effective parables are directed at children. Stories create context without requiring real turmoil and so can teach lessons "the easier way".
Maybe the hero story is meant for children to have someone to look up to. Heroes exemplify the virtue of the culture and teach children the values of the culture. Whether that means to be brave, physically fit, intelligent or trustworthy, children can learn how to be useful adults and understand hierarchies with stories. While these stories are useful for children they can also create a heuristic that models the world in a far too simplistic way. As we mature we should be more and more critical of our tendency to simplify and gloss over important details. We should try to see the world as it is instead of as it might be imagined.
I am sure that those that have interacted with immediate danger will learn a valuable lesson but if you can prepare someone or help them avoid something bad then they are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those that listened to stories and comprehended them, as well as applied their lessons, would have had an advantage in our past which has led to a species that is prone to hold storytelling as a major virtue. The vast majority of humans can understand the lessons that come from stories and we value those that write and act out compelling stories. We are primed to seek out stories as they may help us to survive. This is why the entertainment world has amassed so much wealth, especially in the US.
The problem is that stories would be boring and confusing if they were too realistic. Real-life is oftentimes slow and most of the time nothing interesting happens, especially in the relatively safe 1st world countries around the world today. So, stories must be simplified and made interesting and an easy way to do this is to create a hero versus villain scenario. This creates drama, conflict and an opportunity for a lesson to emerge. Some clever writers play with this theme and will have the hero and villain roles swap or become ambiguous during the story. This is difficult to pull off but if done well can become even more compelling as it illustrates some of the actual vagueries of life. If it is done poorly it leaves the audience with nothing concrete to learn and just creates confusion as to who they should root for.
The reason this concept came to me was that I was watching a video about Jordan Peterson "wrecking" people with his words. It seems ridiculous to take a few excerpts from interviews and think of it as some intellectual victory. Even a long debate between two expert communicators may only result in a minor positive effect on the cultural landscape. Taking a few minute-long clips out of context that makes one person look smarter than another is misleading and disingenuous unless your goal is to attempt to idolize them.
Jordan Peterson could be more humble but if he is as qualified as I believe he is then he has every right to state his case as an expert in the fields of study that he speaks on. Also, he is probably in the minority of those with high IQs and so when interacting with most people on earth he will be the more intelligent and since he usually only talks about what he knows about he seems even more intelligent. He is confident and listens intently. He thinks about his responses more than most but he is not a hero or some kind of perfect human. He gives advise that many people need and they are benefiting from it and he has a great deal to say about humans but even he isn't completely aware of all the variables related to how humans behave. No one person can know everything about psychology or philosophy or any other complicated abstract pursuit.
The real key to our success in the modern world is not the efforts of individuals on their own but of individuals working together. We rely on specialization and the integration of a variety of disciplines to gain real insight into reality and in the pursuit to maximize prosperity. This does not mean that the efforts of individuals such as Elon Musk or Thomas Eddison did not have a major impact on the world but they were not alone in their projects and they were and are not devoid of failures.
Real people are fraught with inconsistent beliefs, personal flaws, and other unbecoming attributes. We often neglect these aspects in ourselves and those we deem heroic. We do the opposite with those with villainize. We focus on their flaws and inconsistencies and deem them unworthy. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
The judgment of others is a crucial skill in that we live in a world of both free and compulsory association with others. We must attempt to accurately judge the character of others in everyday life as well as in the more disconnected realms of politics and foreign relations. This article is not an attempt to deny the importance of assessing others' virtues and vices but the understand the gray and unsteady nature of such endeavors. Really, it is in the pursuit of personal understanding that we can see the nebulousness of others. If we can see ourselves more accurately we can see others as having many good and bad qualities and respect the vagueness of judgments.
At some point, we do need to act on these judgments and sometimes it comes down to deeming someone slightly more good or slightly more bad but we should be careful of our confidence in our judgments. We should seek wisdom in our understanding of our own frailties in an effort to understand the frailties of others and we should be wary of our desire to deify and hold others up above the rest. The inclination to idolize others can blind us to reality and create obedience when the moral act would be defiance. The opposite is true of course.
Don't get caught up in other people's emotions. Customers and coworkers will often times act as if they are in the midst of an emergency when they are not. Or they will act childish or rude. Or they will act as if you are the only one who can help them. This is almost never an accurate depiction of their situation. They might be trying to manipulate you into giving them a price break or, worse, they simply have no control over their emotions. Having empathy and sympathy is helpful in understanding and communicating with customers but getting wrapped up in their emotional states means that you stop being in control of your own autonomy and you can unconsciously take on their emotions. If this happens you can find yourself anxious, angry, fearful, hyperactive or otherwise mirroring someone else's emotions unnecessarily.
When you're in an emotional state that inhibits your ability to look at a situation rationally you will not be able to think around the problem and solve it. Many times there might be no immediate solution available and you end up wasting a lot of time attempting to calm someone down or explain something when you really need to move on in a way that is direct and professional. Sometimes it is important to restart the conversation by explaining what is happening in an effort to regain control of your own participation in the interaction. Being honest about what you think they are expecting or what you think you can do for them can help stop the momentum of an interaction in an effort to lead it back on track to finding a resolution.
This reminds me of the leadership principle of detachment from the book "Extreme Ownership" by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin. The concept of detachment is very important in retail as you represent a company that's goal is to sell products and create loyalty; not to have emotionally driven conversations with people who aren't interested in buying products or who think that it is appropriate to spew their problems onto you because you're obligated to interact with them.
If you have self-respect and maintain a professional demeanor you will not allow situations with customers to get heated or derailed too far. If a customer or coworker becomes abusive or disrespectful then it is up to you to hold them accountable and let them know that you do not accept that kind of behavior.
I remember a time when I had to stop a customer from yelling at me and assert myself in order to regain control of the situation. I was working at a movie theater and part-way through a screening the projector malfunctioned and the speakers started making a loud screeching sound, disturbing many of the customers. I was a manager at the time and as I started issuing apologies and raincheck tickets I had an older man start to scream at me about how the sound hurt his ears and how angry he was, which was obvious. I listened for a few moments and then had to respectfully but assertively explain to the customer that I would not be able to do anything for them unless they stopped yelling. I told them that I understood that they were upset but that I would not allow them to continue to berate me. My tone and demeanor must have communicated my seriousness as the man stopped screaming and I was able to issue them compensation.
One of the best things one can do in a situation where others are being excessively emotional is to be calm and to listen. Allowing someone to vent for a moment can be instructive but at a certain point, you must reestablish your authority and explain what you will do next. As an employee of any business, you are in charge of dictating what will and won't, can and can't happen for someone that is having an issue. Sometimes, this means explaining that you are not the best person to help them, which is another reason to not let a conversation linger too long without interrupting. Upset customers become more upset if they find that they stood in the wrong line or ranted and raved to the wrong person. By listening and remaining calm you can get straight to the matter and come up with a solution.
It is also important to explain the process that you are using to solve a problem. If you come up with an idea to solve a problem you should not just enact the solution without letting the customer know. By explaining step by step what you are about to do or what you think will help you allow the customer to join you in the pursuit and show that you are on their side. Leaving them in silence or without knowing what you are doing creates confusion and may lead to them thinking that you have abandoned them. If they think this or think that you are incompetent then they will look somewhere else and usually with more fuel for their anger.
All of this does not mean you should not have fun conversations with customers and coworkers, but even when you are generating rapport you should be able to detach and get a sense of whether you need to complete the sale or if you have time to continue the conversation or if you need to address something else. There might be something going on that requires your assistance. You may be able to simply tell a nearby customer where a product can be found. Taking a few seconds to check out your environment can help you stay detached and make you able to react to new situations.
Stay calm and pay attention. This is not easy and it takes a certain amount of discipline and control to maintain. It requires observing yourself in the moment and recognizing what is happening, both inside yourself and in the environment around you. It also means looking back at your decisions with criticism and objectivity. There are times when I have failed to maintain my composure or made a bad decision and it is in those times that I look back and try to prepare for the future. By accepting failures, owning them and looking to others for guidance I have grown better at dealing with the ups and downs of life, in and out of the retail environment.
Consciousness is not singular. Our brain produces two consciousness potentials. They glide along the synapses representing a complex array of connections that may or may not contain meaning. They are like ethereal trains being ever created and ever changed by subconscious layers combining and cooperating to produce consciousness. Each side of the brain is capable of creating high fidelity conscious streams. Streams that, if focused on and stabilized, create what we call consciousness.
Harmony between the two lobes can lead to enlightenment and/or flow states. Harmony between the two lobes comes from the practice of focusing on each stream. Understanding each one as separate consciousnesses that intermingle and inform each other's behavior. Each brain develops from subconscious experiences and then, with self-awareness, develops a certain level of consciousness. Each with their own defense mechanisms, habits, and dysfunctions. Each with its own potential for clarity and inclusion. Each with its own merits and importance. And ultimately accepting that the two are really in one creature designed to survive and thrive.
Perception is singular. We only perceive one consciousness at a time. Our perception allows for feedback to the other consciousness not being perceived. We communicate with ourselves as if there are two minds when we debate a problem or impersonate someone else. When we learn from those around us we have to imagine the mind of the other person which is easier because we are evolved to monitor two streams of concepts. When we put ourselves into the mind of someone else we perceive our own consciousness as well as utilize our second consciousness to role-play as the "other". We "watch" ourselves.
If we watch ourselves reacting to a stimulus via a recording, such as a video, then we are engaging in the third dimension of consciousness. One that allows for an additional source of perception and feedback. When one observes one's self one becomes two in the mind again.
Free will is the feedback loop that occurs when one influences one's self. When one observes their own perception and their consciousness in a way that acknowledges and manifests the concept "I am my own master."
Our consciousness is like the universe. It is like DNA. It is like a binary star.
Schizophrenia is a malfunction in the perception mechanism in that it always for two many conscious layers to surface and combine in unpredictable and unstable ways.
Each side of the brain is capable of mimicking the other. They each create crude backups to memories and functions held in the other half. This has a multitude of practical benefits. One is that if there is damage to one part of the brain that function may already have a backup stored in the other half as a reference or analog. The mimicry can be completely abstract and complexly differentiated.
We utilize our model of ourselves to create simulations and to learn lessons. We imagine what we might have done as if we were someone else. We think about what other's might have done as if we were them. When we run these scenarios we recreate the details with more or less accuracy and each piece of the lesson can be analogized and broken down into generalizations, references, categories, metaphors, syllogisms or what have you. We try to simplify the lesson in an effort to more efficiently extract any knowledge and wisdom from it.
The right brain is for mimicking the left brain and the environment. It is more creative and physical. The right brain is for imagination. For non-verbal representations. For senses and feelings. It is intuitive and spontaneous.
The left brain is more logical and organized. It uses language to create meaning. To connect thoughts. To rationalize. The left brain is for solving problems. For remembering words and doing mathematical calculations.
Mimicking allows for learning. Sympathy. Perspective shifting. Mimicking allows for model building. For system testing or prediction modeling.
The left brain observes the model and dissects it. Analyzes it. Connects parts into a meaningful whole. It categorizes. Catalogs.
Maybe during sleep, the right half has more sway and when we are awake the left side holds more sway. This would be beneficial because it would allow the two sides to exercise their strengths more equally throughout the day. Also, it would allow us to be more rational while awake. More focused but during sleep, the left side is more of a follower than a leader and the right brains takes over allowing for the imagination to run rampant. This is why our dreams are so visually and emotionally stimulating but why we struggle to encode them. The right brain is not good at encoding experiences into easily recalled terms. As we awaken the right brain relinquishes control and the left brain takes over.
When we are awake the right side is either as fast or slightly slower. Not sure if the right side is a follower while we are awake or just running without a language. It might be processing things as fast and just as important but because it is missing a formal language... A deaf person surrounded by hearing people will follow someone around to start understanding the world. They would watch the person react to things. They would watch them interacting with the world and would learn how to experience and interact with the outside world for themselves. Just because there isn't a formal, verbal language there is still an internal language or protocol. There must be some mechanism for action and reaction and for learning.
But is something conscious if it has no language?
If a person loses the ability to communicate, are they still conscious? If so, how would we know?
How do we know someone is conscious other than that they communicate it to us. We tell each other that we are conscious. We tell ourselves that we are conscious. We believe that we are conscious. The definition of consciousness seems to be the feeling inside our heads that is self-reflective, narrative-driven and
The separation between the hemispheres is what allows for the ability to attend to two things simultaneously as long as their forms occupy different domains. Such as music with no lyrics and writing. Or listening to music with lyrics while jogging. Or listening to people speaking while driving. One part of the brain is able to take over control of the body without the need for the language parts freeing up the language parts to be used independently.
The split brain would explain why one can have a meaningful experience from a dream or hallucination or event without having a proper way of describing it. For an event example: If someone jumps out of a plane then there is little to rationalize so the right brain takes over allowing the person to feel the situation and experience it more emotionally.
A hallucination occurs when the right and left side are perceived simultaneously by perception. The right brain is making things up while the left brain is trying to fit these things into their rational models. The person has access to language and imagination to a degree normally unavailable. I wonder if corpus callosum activity is increased due to certain drugs.
An out-of-body experience is the opposite experience of falling out of a plane. In the out-of-body situation, the body is not being felt so the right side has nothing to feel other than emotions stored in the brain. It has no outside stimulus so the left side can take over. It creates elaborate rationalizations and can recall things that they wouldn't be able to normally. The left side takes over and tries to create meaning through language and it uses whatever the most deep-seated concepts you have. When asked it applies your most sophisticated language abilities to the task of explaining the out of body experience to others.
An experienced skydiver has jumped out of a plane so many times that can start thinking from the left side of the brain again. I bet that an experienced skydiver's right and left brain are in such harmony and cooperation during a dive that they are equally stimulated and equally attended to and the person feels at one with themselves and the universe. The two streams act as one allowing the person to feel and think in a way that is complimentary. They fuse together filling the person with understandable emotion. It is the opposite of internal chaos.
Language allows for communication, systemization, ideation, and mathematics. Split Brain Patients:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc
It would make sense that an adult or someone sufficiently old enough would have a more integrated perception of self that permeates the entire brain and it's the concept of self prior to being cut would remain intact. As time goes by the two minds integrate and live generally as one entity so when they are cut later in life the person is mostly integrated other than a few physical abnormalities.
I wonder what the effects would be on a person born with no corpus callosum. Would they ever feel like a single person? The body would be the mediator. They would have to share the body. I wonder if the right side would be forced to adapt and create a language even just to communicate with the left side. Would they be like twins with their own language?
Consciousness:
Consciousness is a mechanism that grounds us in the now. It is a metronome that pulsates with the rhythm of the present. It measures time and by accessing memories it connects the past to the present. Consciousness analyzes, contemplates, feels, and interacts with the inner and outer worlds simultaneously. Consciousness is the rider on the wave of the nexus or apex of the two minds streaming across the synapses like a massive current, creating waves of experience.
Is consciousness just the voice in the head? The narrator of the story? Is it just the observance of an internal language generator? Is it what allows us to answer questions related to wakefulness? If a person can respond to other humans then we assume they are conscious. If we ask someone if they are conscious they will likely say yes. If we ask ourselves if we are conscious we will likely respond yes. If the internal observer is consciousness then what generates it? In what structure/s does it reside? What structures are their tools? How does it remain stable and singular? How does it become unstable and chaotic?
Is it just the opposite of the unconscious? When we are unconscious are we running on purely subconscious brain activity? So when we are awake and feel conscious we are doing the same that as when we are asleep except we have an added layer on consciousness.
Is consciousness in the corpus callosum? It can't be because when people have the corpus callosum cut they are still conscious. Do they feel disconnected from certain thoughts, feelings or actions? Since each side of the body is controlled by one side of the brain than when they are disconnected the two halves of the body could act independently. At least to some degree. I'm sure that certain aspect of the brain does not require communication between hemispheres and therefore continue to run normally. Many of these functions are probably related to automatic bodily functions that are so vital they do not require that the hemispheres communicate. Music:
If music engages both sides of the brain in a harmonious way then that must help align the streams of consciousness allowing them to become fused and coordinated. Music is creative, surprising, and aesthetic which is appreciated and focused on by the right side. The left side is attracted to and focused on the rational nature of music. Music is rhythmic, measured, mathematical, and when there is singing the left side is even more enticed. Songs evoke emotion and contemplation. When music is the best the two minds become so in tune that the self disappears and the two become one with time devoid of self-centered ego.
Music is fundamental to humans just as sleeping is in that they are both activities that create a balance between the minds. I think that activities that stimulate the two minds in a harmonious way are valued in societies and perpetuated through culture. This would explain why music, stories, and sports proliferate in societies that have the time to indulge in them and why nearly every human society engages in these kinds of activities.
Also, these kinds of activities are social and can help connect people with each other. People are drawn to things that engage their minds and bodies and the ones that do this harmoniously thrive.
The bad side of two minds:
If both sides of the brain are in synch but are both contemplating negativity, doubt, fear etc they work together in a way that creates problems like depressions, nervousness, mania. Actually, with mania, I am not sure what is going on. Maybe the left brain takes over too much and is overstimulated and manifests a frenzied state.
The body:
The fact that the right brain is connected with the left side of the body and vice versa with respect to the left brain makes perfect sense if the two brains are to act in harmony. Because of this fact even if the two hemispheres are disconnected, as in the split-brain patients, the person does not fight themselves to move about the world. The right and left do not try to take their half somewhere else because their half is connected to the other half through the body and the nervous system.
The body and the mind are linked inexorably. They need each other to live and to communicate. If the body is made of cells and cells are like machines then our body needs an "internet". Our nervous system is the bodies internet and allows for massive amounts of communication. The brain needs oxygen and other supplies and gets these things from the body. The lungs breath in oxygen which is absorbed into the bloodstream. The blood is pumped to the brain which keeps the brain alive. The brain helps protect and direct the body ensuring it stays alive.
The body feeds back information to the mind about how the body is doing. Pain indicates to the brain that there is a mutually beneficial reason to solve the problem. The brain analyzes the problem and takes measures to solve the problem (if solutions are available). The body responds to the problem as well and does what it can to solve the problem such as engaging the immune system. The body and brain either help of hinder each other which determines how well the person does physically and mentally.
This link intertwines the body and the mind and forces each side to be dependant on the other. This allows for harmonious communication and cooperation between each half of the person, which might otherwise work independently.
Flow state:
The two are aligned but the right side is dominant.
Opposite of flow would be chaotic or unaligned. The two sides are working at odds.
We live mostly in a state between total chaos and flow.
Two become four:
When people get together the number of brains and consciousnesses double in size. The amount of connections between hemispheres goes from 2 to four. Now the right side of one can connect with either the right or left side of the other and vice versa.
Most people in the world are right-handed. This must be due partly because of a tipping point in engineering as certain tools get shared, selecting for people to share handedness and partly due to the dominance of the left brain. (Especially during waking hours) If the right brain becomes dominant during sleeping then the left side of the body should have some increase in sensitivity and control.
I imagine consciousness as a rider desperately trying to ride a stream of consciousness flowing around the brain and corpus callosum. Sometimes it rides the right side and sometimes it rides the left. Sometimes it straddles the two and sometimes the streams connect and create a torrent of consciousness. Sometimes the two streams meander away from each other creating a disconnect and chaos. All around the rider is an ocean of uncertainty but the rider tries to hang on. Sometimes the rider can barely stay on and sometimes it can pass from one to the other effortlessly.
But... maybe there is no rider. Maybe perception is nonlocal and it just seems to be focused as a stream of words inside our heads. Maybe it is just epiphenomena that just oozes out of the mind with no purpose or effectiveness. If writing these words comes from the same place as consciousness then consciousness must be localized in the mind. It has to come to some kind of focused point to single generate a single word out from the other possible actions. There has to be a filter or funnel that channels the flow of consciousness in a certain direction.
Maybe the rider can mold this funnel by influencing its direction and speed of flow. Maybe the rider can manipulate the environment of the mind responsible for consciousness to help control consciousness. The rider does this through repetition, meditation, learning, and self-awareness. This is where free will exists and where it can be strengthened. When a person decides to take their own consciousness seriously, to listen to themselves as they interpret the world and makes a conscious effort to do something, they are building up their will power. The stronger the will the more freedom a person can attain as they are less and less controlled by the uncertainty of their own mind and body.
Writing about one's experiences allows one to relive experiences and allows others to relive the experience when they read it. Writing expresses thoughts that would have otherwise been memorized. When we have a persistent thought pattern and do not write it down the mind continues to go over those thoughts in an effort to not lose them but when you write them down you no longer need to go over those ideas. The writing acts like an external memory extending our capacities for thinking.
Writing offers a mechanism for reinforcing memories and solidifying them. It also allows one to process experiences to better understand them. Through writing one can take different perspectives. It offers a glimpse into more of the world then one could have realized without writing it down or otherwise committing it to memory.
Writing can offer a means of trimming memories in that when one writes one creates a sequence that omits certain pieces of information. This allows the overall story to be told without having to remember all of the details. Unfortunately, important details can get lost in this process as well.
The more one writes the more one creates pathways that reinforce the consolidation of experiences into words and narratives. This process helps the mind process daily life in a way that supports and reinforces linguistic specificity.
Communicating via narrative is the main way humans pass on knowledge and therefore any activity that solidifies lessons will be selected for and valued. Prior to widespread formal written language lessons were passed down via oral traditions but writing allows for messages to be shared in a more permanent and spreadable way. One person with a good story was no longer limited to sharing their message with those in their immediate environment. With writing and now the internet messages are spread throughout the world.
One reason there is so much outrage when celebrities, or famous people in general, are caught engaging in corrupt acts is due to the fact that people project their own sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness onto them. The regular, every day, media consumer thinks of themselves as a good person and so they look at celebrities and assume that the reason they are able to amass such wealth, attention, and power must be because celebrities are also good people.
"I'm good and I like this actor, so they must be good?" One might think. Or, "They are popular and successful. They must be good people."
Because they project themselves onto others when the other fails they see themselves as failing. They identified with the other long enough to feel empathy subconsciously for them. But no matter how much empathy they have for their failed celebrity they must distance themselves from them socially. They rebuke them and signal their allegiance to decency based on the current ethics they adhere to and make their position known to others so that they will not be found out to be just as weak, and corrupt as their favorite famous person.
The question to ask when a person is revealed to be an immoral person, after amassing so much of what we all covet, is how did others allow this to happen? Who supported this corrupt individual throughout their career? Should we blame it on all of the consumers that paid for their success or was it their friends, family members and coworkers that allowed them to flourish while inside they were a blight on decency and a disgrace to those that have the moral bravery to do the right thing?
Famous people should be scrutinized in the same manner as everyone else. We should remain objective about others and not make wild assumptions about who they are based on their appearances in popular media. Also, because politicians are famous people they should be scrutinized just like everybody else as well and laws should apply to all equally. It seems that the rich and powerful sometimes skirt the justice system creating another reason for people to see them as superior. This difference generates more jealousy, resentment, and outrage.
No one should be surprised that someone they don't know, at all, turns out to be a "bad person." There are a lot of "bad" people out there and in the case of politics, I can see why a bad person might be drawn to the power there or born into the corrupting nature of power.
Also, we tend to value money and we assume famous people have money. People wish they could be rich, famous and popular so they look at those who have accomplished such things as if they were them. They put themselves into the shoes of their favorite celebrities and imagine that they are them. They want to relate to and become friends with their celebrities. So, when they find out that their favorite famous person did something socially, legally or morally reprehensible they are taken aback because the venire of their idealism has been stripped away.
Maybe others wish they could be as free and powerful as celebrities and they both envy them and resent them and so they display confused and inconsistent stances on celebrity behavior.
Maybe people covet what celebrities have and so they jump on any opportunity to spite and shame them due to their own jealous nature.
Maybe public outrage is just another mechanism to feel included and socially accepted.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be outraged about immoral celebrities but I don't think they should be more outraged about them than anyone else. We should be outraged at anyone that commits terrible crimes or engages in immoral actions. Also, I don't think we should be surprised when someone we don't know is not the person we assumed they were. Maybe it is just easy to jump on the bandwagon of celebrity outrage because the subject of the outrage is well known. I think it important not to deify others and not to pay so much mind to things that have no real effect on you. There are enough things to worry about going on in my neighborhood and around the people I care about that to worry about what Bill Cosby did doesn't seem that important to me.
Maybe we need these famous baddies to teach us a lesson about making assumptions or elevating people due to their status. Maybe we use these public shamings to teach others that no one is safe from scrutiny. Maybe we jump on the famous case of impropriety to showcase our virtue in a way that resounds throughout the land and reinforces our values. Maybe it's just another case of "first world problems" and entertainment. Maybe we revel in any opportunity to display our moral superiority and regain power over the powerful. Maybe the media leeches onto the famous to capitalize on their fame. Maybe pointing out the failures of others distracts us from our own weaknesses and failures.
