Every Sunday Morning, a place where various things get thrown out, shot at, cut open, and dissected. Topics of interest: psychological, and medical anthropology, privatization, globalization, excess, language, humor, hip-hop culture, jazz, brain and mind, memory, urban space development, Los Angeles, the Chicago Bulls, UCLA Bruins, FC Barcelona, and mankind.
He definitely knew how to deliver his language, whether it was on paper or whether he was doing one of his routines. I wondered if my friend Daniel straight ripped off part of his jokes and blunt language from him. George was such a fluid comedian that I was actually concerned about whether or not he could speak so fluidly in real life.
What separated him and other comedians was that he also kinda knew what was going on in the world. He could analyze almost anything in his routines, and he didn't always have to be funny.
by B.J. on 6/14/2004 08:04:00 AM
0 commentsPrint this post
I am writing this as a response to how I stay manage to "stay happy" at least for some periods of time more so than a call for some random reader just to forget problems.
In the first post about this 2 days ago, I established how I thought everything has been constructed by humans and how everything being constructed by humans is funny.
My whole blurb on this artificality of everything is because I think that life shouldn't be too dramatic as if some petty actions determine your survival, especially with the type of life we've (meaning my friends and I) been blessed with. Being dramatic over things like relationships, etc. Basically life's only as dramatic as you make it (again, speaking for my middle class friends). I'm guilty and probably will be guilty as well.
Thinking of dramatics such as crying and taking "family values" brings me to discuss "life problems." College kid "life problems" consist of dealing with roommates, poor time management. Outside of a friend/relative dying, break-ups, getting fired, finances not being met, and maybe failing a tough class given that you gave effort, I don't see how there are other problems in college from a macro (look-at-the-rest-of-the-world-and-see-how-you-stack-up- perspective) these college kid problems are not that big a deal. (Then again, I had little to do because I have engaged in so little.)
When I think of college kid problems and them overreacting, I always imagine a person scrapping the garbage to survive in Somalia and look at that in contrast to the college stupid ass who ODs every weekend.
I'm not saying that college kid problems are not tough, but that I definitely know people have it worse and that college kids (I'm thinking white and Asian folks) really don't have it so horrible it may help to throw things back in perspective before taking things so dramatically. (Oh, hopefully, I'll be able to live up to what I say)
by B.J. on 6/12/2004 11:23:00 PM
0 commentsPrint this post
Everything around me is constructed. "Everything" meaning my ideologies, information I take in, religions, the clothes. Knowing that "everything" around me is constructed just makes this whole business we call "life", stock full of these "everythings", funny as hell because every time I think of humans constructing things I think of little babies with their building blocks mixing and mishting (made that word up) their random letters and blocks (Sometimes, they may form words). Oh, those (err, us) cute ass humans.
In the bigger broader picture, the innovator through many generations of evolution makes the lasting changes that transcends any greatness at something. So, applied to James Naismith and Michael Jordan; James Naismith invented basketball and he will always be known as that, but Michael Jordan will not always be known as the best (sad to say since I'm the biggest Bulls fan you'll ever meet). So James Naismith, innovator, in the bigger picture has made the bigger contribution to human existence.
When you're the best in society, you're usually going to keep the status quo. You'll usually be some jackass who keeps your multi-jillion dollar corporation running not really keeping an eye to improve society or do something breakthrough. You'll just live your life and be somewhat of a waste to human existence in terms of evolving anything cool doing nothing more than eating pizza and bon bons on Saturday nights, but it's OK. Whatever.
Usually, when you're not the best in society, you can go in one of three ways: accept the status quo, flop, or resist against the status quo.
Resisting against the status quo usually means that you've found away around whatever is dominant. Naismith's status quo as a YMCA instructor was to accept that he did not have a sport of skill (skill being a keyword as opposed to some stupid-ass weightlifting or what have you) for his students to play indoors during the winter. Obviously he didn't flop or else there would be no basketball. So his last option was to resist the status quo: create the damn game of basketball, obviously.
So basically, I just said that the objects of change are probably going to be better fit for evolution. Yeah, it's all about change in evolution. That makes sense.
But all I have discussed thus far is resistance at a superficial level.
There's two points that makes the weak survivors a.k.a. the innovators better fit for survival throughout this course of constant evolution: one, they resist. Two, they are versatile. Those that overdominate will probably need too many tools to survive.
Imagine resistance built up by the weak against the dominant over generations. Resistance by the weak is probably what has helped us evolve into what we are. Remember that if you can survive ala the corporation fat cat, you'll probably stay right where you are.
So let's apply that principle of resistance by the weak to the dominant through innovation to human evolution.
So let's say you're the weakest macaque in a troop and you never get food. What the hell do you do ? Fold up and die. Err, not really. Find another way, captain obvious. You find your food around those dominants.
For example, macaques in Sri Lanka have been known to steal actual processed food from villagers. Macaques are old world monkeys. They come from forests and have only been recently coming to human villages because their homes in the forest have been demolished by deforestation or some other ecology-destroying human activity. As far as we know, macaques don't bake or cook shit, but the key is they find their way to get food. They walk on barbed wire that surrounds the village. They get into people's houses. They steal anything they sense is edible from fruits to cakes (as in the one that you bake). Eventually this way of finding food will give these much more distinct traits than their dominant cousins still powerhousing their way in the forest. These distinct traits will have evolved from them specializing in something. These traits will proably eventually help them kick their dominant cousins' asses one day in surviving (maybe literally too, but that's not a given).
An example of distinct traits a genus has developed to potentially kick their once dominant cousins' asses within the same genus in surviving can be seen in humans from chimps. We don't walk on our knuckles for some reason (like maybe as shade from the sun). And we can definitely kick chimps butts if we wanted to. They will get owned. And why'd they start walking, probably to travel long distances. Why travel long distances ? To get food because there was a scarcity and with a scarcity, there's some kind of "weakness" somewhere.
Despite developing distinct traits, "weak" animals manage to stay versatile in the environment. That is, they don't overly gourge on themselves.
There's also such a thing as overdominance. I think a species can develop out of getting too big and eventually killing themselves off. For example, 500-lb gorillas. They are going extinct. Whatever.
Whatever class of animals ascends to being the most dominant (and currently it's humans, FYI) will theoretically, eventually stomp on their ancestors to survive. We evolved from other animals and yet we kill them (we also kill our own.) I find it amazing how we have to respect everything from humans to animals we kill now. But later when we probably won't care.
So the lesson of this story is that if you're weak and you find a way to survive, you'll get yours (at least your ancestors will).
Control is a means of establishing order. Order as the one in control sees it. So, most control is not wanted and resisted against. Of course, not everyone wants to control and establish their own order, but everyone has their own response to it if its pressed upon them (e.g. L.A. riots started because of tensions between police and minority folks). Some people actually like being controlled, but that happens after they've gotten used to that control or want this control to happen because it puts them at comfort (e.g. people against gay marriage). Control of a society is something I will probably never ever get to do.
As for myself, what can I control ?
Hmmm. . .
Ahhhh, the only thing I can control (meaning 'take responsibility for', 'own', 'to use and abuse') at any given time is my breath. I learned that at the Zen Buddhist meditation. It's all about breathing and focusing on it.
And for some reason people turn out happier and freer when focusing on their breathing. They seem more in control.
Physiologically, I think (here comes one of my nutso scientific theories) what happens is that these people get high on oxygen by slowing down their breathing speed and focusing on it. This decreased breathing speed then acts as a natural depressant. So you become calmer and your mind races. It's sorta like getting high off weed. Good feeling as the endorphins overproduce !
(Note: Ya give that control up when you smoke cigs. Ya strengthen that control when you run.)
And as I mentioned, when you smoke cigs, you lose control over your breathing. Depressant it is, but it's a foreign chemical to the body which we as humans have not built and adaptation for yet. So eventually, when you start smoking too much, your cells will overproduce and you get cancer. You lose control. Good job !
When you run, you try and strengthen this control over your breathing. You get a natural high after running for a while because your breath becomes adapted to the pace. You breathe at a steady pace which seems slower in comparison to what you started with. Then you get high and feel good. And best of all you aren't subjected to control by a chemical except what for what is natural. . .the damn air around you.
So what I'm going to do is hold my breath until these out of control smokers get the hell out of my way or at least grab control myself and push them on the ground.
This world moves way too fuckin' fast for me. The basic needs of life are to get food, water, and sex. Everything else to distract you along the way is gravy. So with that, does accomplishing something created by society really matter ? Will it really help your digestion and sex to know that you are a Ph.D ? Food is food and sex is sex I don't know why it is so complex.
Yup. Finding the history of porno with just a google search can be annoying as most of the useful information is found in books that cost $340, but I did my best.
There was erotica in Greek and Roman times. Before pornography, apparently there was plenty of build-up, manifested in erotic writing, challenging the perils of censorship. A lot of the writers at the time from Shakespeare to Chaucer implicitly tapped on eroticism. And writers kept pushing the bounds of censorship until the Victorian times.
Explicit artifacts were discovered at Pompeii during the Victorian period, more than 2 centuries ago. This random guy online, Fenton Bailey tells the audience, "The question that faced them was what to do with the abundance of lewd artefacts they found that were obviously part of everyday life for the ancient Romans?"
"The solution was to place them in a "secret museum", where "gentlemen with appropriate demeanour (and ready cash for the custodian), would be admitted to the locked chamber where controversialities lurked; women, children and the poor of both sexes and all ages were excluded". The idea of the secret museum caught on with museums all over Europe setting up their own restricted collections, from l'Enfer in Paris to the Private Case at the British Library in London."
So began the institution of porn. According to Bailey, the difference between the erotica of the Greek and Roman times and this porn is that erotica is natural lovemaking, whilst porn is mechanical masturbation. "In short, if you jerk off to it, it [pornography] can have no other redeeming value."
This label of mechanical masturbation on porn is why I can't see porn as some type of art, unlike these girls (it's another drab article, not a pic) who consider themselves artists.
Nowadays, the porn industry has encountered plenty of exposure via the internet and has done battle in the court system. For any of that drab crap, you can look it up on google.
But the porn itself looks the same, only with differing styles in accordance with the time and place some material was concocted. You can find stuff from that time if you look up "vintage" on a google search. Same old sleaze.
Happy 1-yay Annivay yesterday to mi A-mory-A-Nay. This is dedicated to you.
I know the world out there is more than just 'liberal' and 'conservative', but I'm just trying to categorize to make my posts much clearer.
The more engaged people become in something that interests them, the more they lose sight of the things surrounding the something. People lose context of society when they become involved in something like their job, their own problems, etc. For example, I got way too involved with my Environment California crap, they kicked me, and now I'm here not supporting them and making sure everyone at least thinks for themselves before supporting them when they otherwise might mean well.
People become very engaged in new discoveries and innovations. With new discoveries, there comes more specificity with the discoveries. The discoveries and innovations cause people to want things to perform a very specific function and then some at a high quality. The iMac Ipod comes to mind as an example. People want it to listen to music and then do all these other things, like playing MP4s, etc. (Wibs !) As a result, people hold high expectations in general. For example, people who have air conditioning in their cars would really get annoyed if they rode through this 90 degree LA heat wave in my non-air conditioned 1989 Celica because they've been used to air conditioning.
With new discoveries and innovations, there also comes more new rules and boundaries. Discovering and exploring is liberal and free in nature, but once the positive results, the finished products, such as iMac iPods come into use by society's individuals, conservatism spreads itself even more in society along with this desire for specificity. Conservatism is based on establishing more and more standards.
In contrast to this conservatism and a quest for specificity, I associate the liberal and the free with a kid-like, ambitious nature. For the liberal and free, it's about the process and fun. "Grown-up" old society clamors for specificity. For this group its about the results. Ironically enough, when it comes to causes for society like poverty, the two groups of "liberal" and "conservative" switch their objectives; the liberals clamor for results, and the conservatives focus on the process. Conservative folks generally like to appeal to individuals rather than society.
When it comes to causes for society like poverty, life in general for society, conservatives focus on the process. It's about focusing on hunger by highlighting the work of food banks and homeless homes and suggesting mental help. It bolsters the conservative's image. But giving the impoverished folk food to eat solves their problems extremely temporarily. They show that the process is working. This show of process has probably suckered even some liberal folk into shoving poverty to the backburner as a non-problem. Basically, this focus on process is not about getting to the root of the problem, which is about helping the impoverished get off their feet.
Getting to the root of the problems: I'm not sure that Environment California did that. Just another corporation to battle other corporations. They don't appeal to the people as people. They tell people what's best for them. And most of all, they focused on highlighting this process of canvassing door-to-door rather than immediate social change. It's probably good that they paid young kids to canvass door-to-door, but it really does nothing for the cause. It's futile. I feel like they had more resources to raise hell with the politicians themselves. Basically, they should not subject themselves to rules and regulations such as a standard rap or even going door-to-door. I think they should do something ala truth.com and make noise with the media. Media at least is expected to be impersonal and thus has a better chance at cracking impersonality and this society of specificity.
This society's inherent tendency towards specificity makes sure to attack/appeal to you on the personal, psychological level. For example, people have become too dependent on technology. It's like how do we know that our cars won't break down when we try to get to an interview on time ? Specificity creates all these enormous expectations. And when expectations are not met, people drown themselves. . .endlessly. . .
Most people in America are so used to things working, quickly and efficiently in accordance with standards. We get mad when we can't work quickly and efficiently in people's eyes. It's like we're competing with machines we've created. For example, when someone does something amazing like bench press 1000 lbs, we talk about how "that dude is a machine." And when some dude can't bench 1000 lbs, that dude becomes some kind of a wimp, probably in his own eyes and the eyes of some others :cough: Erwin.
Standards like those (that 1000 pounds means you are strong) are just something that legitimizes the bullshit that some guy is strong and some other guy is weak. As a result, a lot of people don't end up doing things for themselves and only for themselves. They do it for any other reason than to feel good about themselves. And when people don't feel strongly about themselves, they can't feel too strongly for others. The media exaggerates "weak" people's problems and magnifies 10 fold how weak and strong people can be and look like. In reality, there is no standard people have to live up. In the end, it's up to people themselves to find out what's right and what's true.
One of the philosophies I have developed during this past year has been to work efficiently rather than to work hard. Working too hard often results in compounded disappointment, and aggravated stress, etc. An efficient piece of work is often the better result. With that said, I fail to see how cleaning in general be it your living space, your car, or even yourself is an efficient piece of work.
Por ejemplo, yung nanay y tatay ko's (my mom and dad's) cleaning forced me to spend money on buying lost parts to my electronic stuff. When I got home for the summer, my room was full of my mom's nursing crap up to the toilet seat (there's no toilet seat in my room, I was just trying to be funny) on top of funky decorations such as a big fat plastic heart with the word "love" cliched across the heart in glitters and sparkles and a Persian style bedset (which has since been replaced by my old raggedy, comfortable old comforter). So I had quite a time sifting through all the glitz and glamour for my electronic hookup thing-a-majiggers, before reluctantly shelling out 10 bucks on the lost electronic stuff. Cleanliness was the cause for this inability to locate my items. Cleanliness is evil.
It's a topic Wibs and I went over a few weeks ago, and just now it's dawned upon me that cleaning up in general isn't all that necessary. Cleanliness is just too much work, which cancels out efficiency because its sort of a waste of time when the shit gets dirty again. You can count the times I've washed my clothes when I was living in my dorm for 9 months on one hand. My car's exterior was as dusty as a grandfather's fart. And me. . . you figure that out (or you can ask 'Well, 'Yell, and Hane). I'm comfortable being a dirty, shaggy pu. . .eh. . .foo. . .eh. . .person. I'll clean stuff up, but only when I feel the need to and know that it won't get dirty for some time.
What took me over the top with this "cleanliness isn't necessary" was when I went to go wash "Blinky (my little red car named by Sharles) on a Thursday. It was about 90 degrees, which made the car dry off quicker. As a result of this quick drying, my windows have now have those little not-quite-so-transparent teardrops on the windows, bringing my car back to where it was in terms of clearness and visibility minus some dirt. At least I got the interior clean, but it wasn't worth four dollars.
So in just these 2 little micro-examples, I've spent fourteen dollars trying to organize and clean shit up. And fourteen bucks is something I would kill for as a 19-year old college kid ! With my budget, cleanliness can definitely be sacrificed.
Another hit to clean-living, is this new groundbreaking research. There's a possibility you can get asthma from clean-living. Getting asthma is most likely due to the lack of tolerance built up the lungs to dirty stuff. I wouldn't be called "asthma boy" by such people as my Godsis if I had just grown up on a farm or something. Thanks mom and dad, for destroying my chance at a prestigious, glorious career as a marathon runner.
I pick Naismith because since I want to be a hubristic, capitalist bastard, I want to be in the general history books, rather than just the NBA basketball history books. Naismith's accomplishment as an innovator is lasting in the general context.
Would you rather create and invent one thing or be the best at one thing ?
In the bigger picture, towards the advancement of society, it's about either being the best in your field of study or creating something new. To be the best, you first have to be an expert. Expertise, in my humble opinion, is a practical-to-society thing that requires that you to know the standards of your specific field, set through people from different areas and eras.
The standards of a field of knowledge set don't reflect on how those regional biases of the people from different areas and eras came to a conclusion and gave credence to a standard. Without these regional biases we don't get the whole story. For example, cars are used everywhere and they operate on an internal combustion chamber using up oil. But then, there are differences in cars engineered in Germany as to those in Japan, and consumers, my friends like to highlight how Japanese cars are all quality and all that other crap. The point is we are not understanding exactly why Japanese cars are all quality; we are not understanding the processes of process-driven things such as science. But fuck, I want to understand that shit. And you should too because it is more useful than some frat party where 700 sorority girls get fucked by 10,000 Abercrombie frat boys.
What people become "experts" in are very specific and therefore, limited. The rules and standards of what people know also evolve with the times, which shrinks the value of 'expertise'. For example, no one cares about the bubonic plague, but apparently, it's making some kind of a comeback. The experts could not prevent that shit from re-occuring even though it is treatable, and from 1000 - 3000 people still get it annually. Innovators, such as Louis Pasteur, notorious for experimentation and linkage, bumped into the cures. Innovators of ideas, technologies, whatever. Experts are there to fill in space, job openings.
So the choice should obviously and overwhelmingly be Naismith, innovator and creator.
I bring this question of being an 'expert' or 'innovator' because experts are exactly what Asians are becoming. It seems like we're settling for middle-classiness. For example, Indians from the Harvard, MIT-like IIT university are merely becoming top entrepreneurs and not helping mother ole India erect itself from the ashes. These IIT people have so much power, but they use it for themselves and don't want to create anything new. I understand that institutions and groups of people in general are the discovery-makers nowadays, but it still feels like they're training just to get jobs because we're still in a mode of survival. And that's a killer to explorative, adventurous traits.
In social groups, I see people wanting to be the best, rather than some kind of innovator. From far away, it's the NBA players who are filthy rich but do jack shit for the community. In my own circles, many a time I see people get caught up in wanting to be Michael Jordan (Hane ! But she's not who I'm thinking about when I make these descriptions). Most of these types I've encountered thru the Filipino family party system, in my humble opinion, are likely to brag to their friends in a condescending way about what school their kid goes to in comparison to some other kid. And it's done in such a subtle way that it doesn't visibly upset anyone, but enough to get under the skin of the competitive. That competitiveness is what has lead to some distance and strain in some of my family's relationships. People don't try to be above competition and focus on other things. It leads to cheating and other tactics that lead to nothing. This kind of be-a-Michael Jordan-mindset is likely to accomplish jack squat towards any advancement in society.
I'm not saying that innovators have all the answers; they're just more likely to bump across something that improves society. I'm also not saying that people should just forget about becoming experts, just that people shouldn't stop at that. In fact, to be an innovator, people do have to get acclimated with some of the standards and then pick a bone to explore. It's just about thinking within yourself and exploring all your instincts and linking it up with other ideas. There's nothing to fear with being adventurous. Peach baskets here we come !
A) Would I fold to the super stress and become a dope dealer ?
OR
B) Would I have quite a story to tell about overcoming scrappy beginnings ?
I always THINK A, but have the gut FEELING it's B. It's a hypothetical question with no right answers. I take things as they are thrown to me, I guess. My "whatever" hippie, AP US teacher once told me NOT to WORRY about what "would" happen because these hypothetical situations can go on and on. Basically it means that "ifs" are not going to make anything happen in this world. But this particular "if" of how I'd react without middle-class welfare is IMPORTANT because it shows just how disadvantaged low-class people are. Take our INCOMPETENT president for example. . .you think he'd be running the country without his daddy being president ? Least with liberalism, we'd have a much more equal playing field. . .and a much smarter person would be president.
Add me to your reading list.
|
Sports Two |
Big Soccer |
Basketball Forum |
|
Michael Moore |
Onion |
Entertaining News |
Questions for God |
E-Baums World |
Stupid Videos 
|
So You Wanna... |
Medical Anthropology |
|
Websites' Archives |
