Saturday, September 18, 2004
What is art?
That didn't used to be such a big question; everyone used to know what was art and what was not, and there was no gray area. Art wasn't something just anyone could make, but it was something everyone could enjoy. Then, the modernization of the world started to affect how art was created...
For the record, I do NOT think that something has to be pretty, happy, easily understood or photorealistic to be art; art can be ugly, it can make you sad, angry or revolted, it can take time to figure out, and it can be abstract (up to a point). In a world where learning art isn't something that just a privileged few get to do, though, in a world where artists don't have to focus on doing portraits and religious art because that's where the $ is, and especially in a world where millions of people have Photoshop, in my mind there has to be more to art that just the creation of some sort of recognizable image:
Art should show you something new.
Art should indicate that its creator has a unique and powerful vision.
Art should make you react.
Art should make you think and/or feel intensely.
A couple of the traditional beliefs about art no longer apply:
Art does NOT require any training; outsider art is a brilliant example of what people with no background of any sort in art can produce with just whatever materials they can scrounge and their innate talent. Yes, making certain types of art DOES need to be learned, but far from all, and learning those techniques does NOT guarantee that what you create is art.
Art does NOT require pricey materials; outsider art is once again proof. Yes, some sorts of art DO need expensive stuff to make them, but the most innovative art uses unexpected materials, including things we normally look at as "garbage."
There's nothing too radical about what I've said so far; plenty of art experts say similar things. My ideas of what do NOT constitute art, though, consistently get me into debates:
Anything that looks like a wallpaper pattern is NOT art.
Anything that a 2 year old could duplicate, or that looks like it WAS made by a 2 year old, is NOT art.
Anything that shows technical skill but has no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that was generated using a computer, no matter how flashy and elaborate, with no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that goes beyond abstract to become meaningless blobs of color is NOT art.
Anything that is created by randomness, such as by throwing paint-filled balloons at a canvas, is NOT art.
And finally:
If you create something that's fabulous and innovative, but someone else did it first, their stuff is art; yours isn't.
Doing something new does NOT guarantee that you've produced art, though; this will come as a surprise to those "artists" who have claimed things like basketballs floating in an aquarium
http://www.artnet.com/Galleries/Artwork_Detail.asp?G=&gid=154249&cid=58631&which=&aid=9741&wid=423917150&source=exhibitions&rta=http://www.artnet.com
http://www.c-m-arts.com/exhibitions/koons2004/01.html
(I hasten to add that many of Jeff Koons's works ARE art), a piece of string pinned to a wall (I couldn't find a photo, but you know what a piece of string looks like), and, most famously, a crucifix in a container of urine
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
are art, not to mention the people who have collected these things, usually to the tune of big bucks (the string one was a gift to the collector). I DO see many of even the most extreme pieces of modern art as true art; the sculpture of a head created from the artist's (Marc Quinn) own frozen blood
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/manson/manson6-4-8.asp
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/visarts/globe/issue7/bod012.jpg
is a prime example (it was reported as having been accidentally "melted" a couple of years back, but luckily that was just a publicity stunt), but way too much of it is just utter nonsense with no vision behind it that the creators laugh all the way to the bank about having gotten some witless sap to purchase.
I'm sure that many readers will disagree with some or all of this; these days, art is about as subjective as anything ever gets. I think that the most important thing is that we look at art, or alleged art, think about it, and draw our own conclusions.
For the record, I do NOT think that something has to be pretty, happy, easily understood or photorealistic to be art; art can be ugly, it can make you sad, angry or revolted, it can take time to figure out, and it can be abstract (up to a point). In a world where learning art isn't something that just a privileged few get to do, though, in a world where artists don't have to focus on doing portraits and religious art because that's where the $ is, and especially in a world where millions of people have Photoshop, in my mind there has to be more to art that just the creation of some sort of recognizable image:
Art should show you something new.
Art should indicate that its creator has a unique and powerful vision.
Art should make you react.
Art should make you think and/or feel intensely.
A couple of the traditional beliefs about art no longer apply:
Art does NOT require any training; outsider art is a brilliant example of what people with no background of any sort in art can produce with just whatever materials they can scrounge and their innate talent. Yes, making certain types of art DOES need to be learned, but far from all, and learning those techniques does NOT guarantee that what you create is art.
Art does NOT require pricey materials; outsider art is once again proof. Yes, some sorts of art DO need expensive stuff to make them, but the most innovative art uses unexpected materials, including things we normally look at as "garbage."
There's nothing too radical about what I've said so far; plenty of art experts say similar things. My ideas of what do NOT constitute art, though, consistently get me into debates:
Anything that looks like a wallpaper pattern is NOT art.
Anything that a 2 year old could duplicate, or that looks like it WAS made by a 2 year old, is NOT art.
Anything that shows technical skill but has no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that was generated using a computer, no matter how flashy and elaborate, with no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that goes beyond abstract to become meaningless blobs of color is NOT art.
Anything that is created by randomness, such as by throwing paint-filled balloons at a canvas, is NOT art.
And finally:
If you create something that's fabulous and innovative, but someone else did it first, their stuff is art; yours isn't.
Doing something new does NOT guarantee that you've produced art, though; this will come as a surprise to those "artists" who have claimed things like basketballs floating in an aquarium
http://www.artnet.com/Galleries/Artwork_Detail.asp?G=&gid=154249&cid=58631&which=&aid=9741&wid=423917150&source=exhibitions&rta=http://www.artnet.com
http://www.c-m-arts.com/exhibitions/koons2004/01.html
(I hasten to add that many of Jeff Koons's works ARE art), a piece of string pinned to a wall (I couldn't find a photo, but you know what a piece of string looks like), and, most famously, a crucifix in a container of urine
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
are art, not to mention the people who have collected these things, usually to the tune of big bucks (the string one was a gift to the collector). I DO see many of even the most extreme pieces of modern art as true art; the sculpture of a head created from the artist's (Marc Quinn) own frozen blood
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/manson/manson6-4-8.asp
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/visarts/globe/issue7/bod012.jpg
is a prime example (it was reported as having been accidentally "melted" a couple of years back, but luckily that was just a publicity stunt), but way too much of it is just utter nonsense with no vision behind it that the creators laugh all the way to the bank about having gotten some witless sap to purchase.
I'm sure that many readers will disagree with some or all of this; these days, art is about as subjective as anything ever gets. I think that the most important thing is that we look at art, or alleged art, think about it, and draw our own conclusions.
Friday, September 17, 2004
When did American homes get so stinky?
My recent revelation about how the sorts of phone service related ads being shown have changed got me paying closer attention to what else is being advertised on TV these days, and a strange and scary pattern emerged; we've apparently become obsessed with making our homes smell like fruit and flowers and such. When did our living areas start smelling so bad that this became necessary?
I wish I'd bought stock in an air freshener company, because there's some big $ there these days. The choices are nearly infinite: The old-style unpowered ones come in glass and plastic, in every color, in shapes that range from utilitarian to cutesy to artsy, with liquid or solid scented stuff in fragrances that cover the spectrum from simple one-note scents to elaborate aromatherapy blends. The newer, powered ones, which can be battery or electrical, offer us fans, lights and visible puffs of... whatever that smoky stuff is... and, most surreal of all, a thing like a CD player that spews a whole series of scents from discs that look like CD's.
Then, there are the candles, the sprays (some of which are air sanitizers, whatever that is), Febreze, which you're supposed to spray on all your cloth surfaces, fabric softener that they make a big deal of the scent of in ads with no mention of the softening ability... since when does everything in our homes have to be artificially scented?
Want to know what's REALLY odd? I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for perfume (or body spray, does that even exist any more?); is everything supposed to be scented EXCEPT us? I DID see some ads for men's cologne, though... maybe men have gotten stinkier too? ;-)
Imagine what foreigners think when they come to this country and see American TV, and American ads, for the 1st time; do they go back home and tell their friends that all we care about are cell phone plans and making our homes smell sickeningly sweet? We are a disturbingly weird country, lol.
I wish I'd bought stock in an air freshener company, because there's some big $ there these days. The choices are nearly infinite: The old-style unpowered ones come in glass and plastic, in every color, in shapes that range from utilitarian to cutesy to artsy, with liquid or solid scented stuff in fragrances that cover the spectrum from simple one-note scents to elaborate aromatherapy blends. The newer, powered ones, which can be battery or electrical, offer us fans, lights and visible puffs of... whatever that smoky stuff is... and, most surreal of all, a thing like a CD player that spews a whole series of scents from discs that look like CD's.
Then, there are the candles, the sprays (some of which are air sanitizers, whatever that is), Febreze, which you're supposed to spray on all your cloth surfaces, fabric softener that they make a big deal of the scent of in ads with no mention of the softening ability... since when does everything in our homes have to be artificially scented?
Want to know what's REALLY odd? I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for perfume (or body spray, does that even exist any more?); is everything supposed to be scented EXCEPT us? I DID see some ads for men's cologne, though... maybe men have gotten stinkier too? ;-)
Imagine what foreigners think when they come to this country and see American TV, and American ads, for the 1st time; do they go back home and tell their friends that all we care about are cell phone plans and making our homes smell sickeningly sweet? We are a disturbingly weird country, lol.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Sexual desire in long-term relationships
How many times have you heard a man who: hasn't told the woman he's settled into couplehood with that he loves her, paid her a compliment, or done anything romantic or thoughtful for her in months, gave her a gym membership and a blender for her birthday, forgot their anniversary entirely, walks around the house in ragged old underwear with his gut hanging over the waistband, scratching his balls and picking his nose, leaves a mess for her to pick up in every room he enters, and can't be bothered to do his share of the tasks vital to the running of HIS home and the care of HIS kids... complaining that his woman isn't interested in sex with him any more?
In the olden days, a man could treat his home like a hotel and his wife like a maid, and do nothing for the household except bring home a paycheck, and still get laid, because that was the trade-off that he had made with his wife; her services as mother of his kids, housekeeper and sexual receptacle in return for him financing their lives... but that's NOT the deal most couples have today. Even more importantly, in the old days the woman didn't expect to want or enjoy sex, and the man didn't expect her to either; she was just expected to grit her teeth and go along with it... and this is the crucial point, fellas-no woman who ever lived has become sexually eager from any of those "traditional" male behaviors described above, so unless you expect YOUR woman to just grit her teeth and have joyless sex with you, you have to clean up your act if you want more sex. If you want your woman to feel desire, you have to do enough of the work on the home front to free up time and lower her stress, treat her like a valuable part of your life rather than as a sort of privileged domestic, and walk around the house looking (and SMELLING) like someone a woman would WANT to have sex with.
A final point that should be obvious but too often gets ignored: your woman would feel more desire if the sex was more to her liking, which means more kissing and foreplay (with emphasis on oral sex), more romance and tenderness, and less rough pawing of delicate female body parts.
Ladies, if your man has dampened desire, he may have taken on too much at work, and is swallowing all the stress, because, well, that's what men do; try to get him to do an intense workout, and/or give him a full-body massage, and that alone may be enough to kick-start his libido. If that's not it, take advantage of the male passion for novelty and start shaking things up: try and initiate sex at different times of day (men have the highest level of testosterone in the early AM, just FYI), in different places (including outside if you're up for it), and in different ways, which can mean anything from a different position to getting a French maid costume and offering to... well, use your imagination. Just keep in mind that men are highly visual creatures, so anything you do that gives him something hot to look at, from watching porn together to having sex with the lights on in front of a mirror to coming to bed in a lace teddy instead of sweats, will get you bonus points.
Once you get past the hot-and-heavy early rush of lust for your partner, you have to put some conscious thought into keeping the sex lively and your desire high; if you don't do that, and if you get lazy about your grooming, your consideration for each other, and the catering to each person's specific sexual turn-ons, of course things will fizzle-life is NOT a romance movie. Don't begrudge your partner a little effort; think of how much benefit YOU will get once the sheets are smoking again.
In the olden days, a man could treat his home like a hotel and his wife like a maid, and do nothing for the household except bring home a paycheck, and still get laid, because that was the trade-off that he had made with his wife; her services as mother of his kids, housekeeper and sexual receptacle in return for him financing their lives... but that's NOT the deal most couples have today. Even more importantly, in the old days the woman didn't expect to want or enjoy sex, and the man didn't expect her to either; she was just expected to grit her teeth and go along with it... and this is the crucial point, fellas-no woman who ever lived has become sexually eager from any of those "traditional" male behaviors described above, so unless you expect YOUR woman to just grit her teeth and have joyless sex with you, you have to clean up your act if you want more sex. If you want your woman to feel desire, you have to do enough of the work on the home front to free up time and lower her stress, treat her like a valuable part of your life rather than as a sort of privileged domestic, and walk around the house looking (and SMELLING) like someone a woman would WANT to have sex with.
A final point that should be obvious but too often gets ignored: your woman would feel more desire if the sex was more to her liking, which means more kissing and foreplay (with emphasis on oral sex), more romance and tenderness, and less rough pawing of delicate female body parts.
Ladies, if your man has dampened desire, he may have taken on too much at work, and is swallowing all the stress, because, well, that's what men do; try to get him to do an intense workout, and/or give him a full-body massage, and that alone may be enough to kick-start his libido. If that's not it, take advantage of the male passion for novelty and start shaking things up: try and initiate sex at different times of day (men have the highest level of testosterone in the early AM, just FYI), in different places (including outside if you're up for it), and in different ways, which can mean anything from a different position to getting a French maid costume and offering to... well, use your imagination. Just keep in mind that men are highly visual creatures, so anything you do that gives him something hot to look at, from watching porn together to having sex with the lights on in front of a mirror to coming to bed in a lace teddy instead of sweats, will get you bonus points.
Once you get past the hot-and-heavy early rush of lust for your partner, you have to put some conscious thought into keeping the sex lively and your desire high; if you don't do that, and if you get lazy about your grooming, your consideration for each other, and the catering to each person's specific sexual turn-ons, of course things will fizzle-life is NOT a romance movie. Don't begrudge your partner a little effort; think of how much benefit YOU will get once the sheets are smoking again.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The long-distance revolution
My long-distance company has added a monthly fee to my bill, where previously there had never been one; with that, what was apparently the LAST calling plan offered by ANY major long-distance company with no monthly fee bit the dust. I discovered the latter when I started searching for a new company to give my business to; ATT, MCI and Sprint seem to have decided that the best way to combat the explosion of 10-10 dial-arounds, calling cards and cellular plans is to make what they have to offer look even LESS appealing to consumers.
Dismayed, I tried to think of what the most recent ads for bargain long-distance plans were that I'd seen, and realized that I haven't seen a single ad from a long-distance company in a long, long, LONG time... I honestly think it's been at least a couple of YEARS. When did we go from having an ad about a long-distance plan every 5 minutes to having them totally disappear? :-O
A 2nd realization occurred; for quite a while, there had been an endless stream of ads for the 10-10 dial-arounds, but I haven't seen one of THEM in ages, either... it sort of freaks me out that I never noticed any of this.
What have we got in replacement of the prior ads? A million and one ads for cellphones and the plans for them. *I* refuse to waste $ on a cellphone, but I can see more clearly now how everyone else has gotten so sucked in by them-it's all we see anymore, and what we want is what we see.
Because some months I don't make ANY long-distance calls, I'm going to hook up with some no-name company with no monthly fees; with luck, I'll end up with one that beats the 3¢ a minute that I've been paying for long distance with 10-10-297 (my official carrier was charging me quite a bit more even with an ultra-savings plan) so I can just make calls like a normal human being without having to dial extra #'s, but one way or the other I'm giving up on the former "Big 3" of long distance and tossing my $ at whoever wants to profit off the 5-hour calls I make when I DO use long distance (and that's not a typo-if you think my blog posts are long, you should hear my conversations, lol).
My husband told me that he thought we could plug a BlackBerry (with a cellular connection) into my computer and I'd be able to use my speakers and mic to carry on phone conversations; if I end up getting one to allow me to place my eBay bids while out to dinner (or wherever), that's probably what I'll end up doing. As you can imagine, my husband is salivating at the idea of getting such an advanced gadget, but I'm not convinced quite yet that it's justifiable to be that self-indulgent; in the meantime, we'll have to grit our teeth and pick from the list of companies we've never heard of and trust one of them with our long distance dollars... and be grateful that we CAN search online, rather than being at the mercy of the familiar companies.
Maybe we should go back to sending smoke signals....
Dismayed, I tried to think of what the most recent ads for bargain long-distance plans were that I'd seen, and realized that I haven't seen a single ad from a long-distance company in a long, long, LONG time... I honestly think it's been at least a couple of YEARS. When did we go from having an ad about a long-distance plan every 5 minutes to having them totally disappear? :-O
A 2nd realization occurred; for quite a while, there had been an endless stream of ads for the 10-10 dial-arounds, but I haven't seen one of THEM in ages, either... it sort of freaks me out that I never noticed any of this.
What have we got in replacement of the prior ads? A million and one ads for cellphones and the plans for them. *I* refuse to waste $ on a cellphone, but I can see more clearly now how everyone else has gotten so sucked in by them-it's all we see anymore, and what we want is what we see.
Because some months I don't make ANY long-distance calls, I'm going to hook up with some no-name company with no monthly fees; with luck, I'll end up with one that beats the 3¢ a minute that I've been paying for long distance with 10-10-297 (my official carrier was charging me quite a bit more even with an ultra-savings plan) so I can just make calls like a normal human being without having to dial extra #'s, but one way or the other I'm giving up on the former "Big 3" of long distance and tossing my $ at whoever wants to profit off the 5-hour calls I make when I DO use long distance (and that's not a typo-if you think my blog posts are long, you should hear my conversations, lol).
My husband told me that he thought we could plug a BlackBerry (with a cellular connection) into my computer and I'd be able to use my speakers and mic to carry on phone conversations; if I end up getting one to allow me to place my eBay bids while out to dinner (or wherever), that's probably what I'll end up doing. As you can imagine, my husband is salivating at the idea of getting such an advanced gadget, but I'm not convinced quite yet that it's justifiable to be that self-indulgent; in the meantime, we'll have to grit our teeth and pick from the list of companies we've never heard of and trust one of them with our long distance dollars... and be grateful that we CAN search online, rather than being at the mercy of the familiar companies.
Maybe we should go back to sending smoke signals....
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Friends vs followers
People often tell me things like "It must be SO wonderful to be so smart/funny/fearless/etc," unaware that their tone has more than a little envy in it... as if being the focus of attention were something to ENVY, instead of a pain in the butt and a thankless duty.
Does that not make sense? Do you wish that YOU were the sort of person who effortlessly attracted an appreciative audience, or that people would want to hang around with and look up to, or did you wish that as a kid? If so, prepare to be disillusioned, because there's NOTHING that any sane person would want about being the "center" of a group.
Yes, yes, it's nice to see that people think you're cool at a social gathering (for about 5 minutes, unless you're supremely shallow or naive)... but if you pause, or, heaven forbid, stumble, in your standup routine, impassioned monologue, or whatever, people will turn on a dime and ***poof***, they're gone, leaving you wondering how you could have thought they were so friendly, and why you bothered to exert the effort for them. This is a watered-down version of the dynamic every famous person experiences; people that are being entertained by you might act really friendly, but they do NOT want to be your friends... they want a one-way transfer of energy and enjoyment from you to them. Does that sound like something YOU would want? Me neither; years ago, I wised up and stopped being the floor show for people other than trusted friends.
It's not just attentive strangers you have watch out for if you're the gregarious and amusing sort; the REAL "danger" is sycophants, those fake, 2-faced, born-to-be-follower types who'll come out of the woodwork to gather around a "leader," basking in reflected glory, accepting the steady stream of love, support and assistance that comes from a leader (and it takes ALOT of time and effort to provide all of that, trust me), enjoying the ready-made social group and party atmosphere that the leader provides, and claiming eternal friendship... but, unlike with actual friendship, the follower doesn't give anything back, or even act as if they see the leader as a human being with needs and feelings (to which they should show sensitivity), one to whom they owe much and should be able to be counted on to reciprocate to at least once in a while. In other words, the one who's the center of attention, the center of the group, has the "honor" of making all the effort for everyone and getting nothing in return... how good does THAT sound to you?
Wait, it gets better: Any time the leader has a setback in their life, the sycophants will be sniggering and crowing about it behind their back... and sometimes to their face.... AND, if, or should I say WHEN, the leader does something to displease a sycophant, such as not being a doormat for them where bad behavior is concerned, the sycophant will turn on the leader like a rabid dog; the first clue the leader gets about this is usually snippy commentary about how "controlling" they are (you know, for being the one who makes all the effort for the others, which they've always been happy to lay back and accept, and even DEMAND), how they "expect people to kiss their feet," and other distortions of the dynamic of exactly whose idea the foot-kissy behavior WAS, and how the leader is overbearing, bossy, blah blah blah (never realizing how bad THEY would look if the person they followed like lapdogs really WAS all those terrible things)... and suddenly, the person who has exerted all of the effort, not to mention all of the caring, in the "relationship" suddenly finds themselves with, at best, someone who stalks off leaving bad feelings behind, or, at worst, an actual enemy.
What on Earth is behind this twisted behavior? I've heard that the Chinese character for gratitude is the same as the one for resentment... and that the character for admiration is the same as the one for resentment... probably NEITHER is true, but the point behind the belief that they ARE is one of the ugliest aspects of human nature; people, particularly weak and/or follower types, DO resent those that they see as "having superior qualities," because they feel lessened by comparison, and those who are able to give, because they HAVE something to give, while they see themselves as only being able to take.
The last time, both in the sense of most recent and, hopefully, in the sense of the final time in my life, that I got sucked in by this sort of thing is with the "psycho bitch" whose online destruction by the members of the forum she spent her life on I've chronicled several times on this blog; much as it pains me, I've learned that I have to bring somewhat of an accountant mentality to new relationships, and consciously measure whether what I'm getting back from each person is approximating what I'm giving them... followers are too lazy to give anything (which is of course part of why they're followers to begin with-being a leader, or even an independent, takes alot of work), but a FRIEND will automatically give back as fast as they receive.
If you're the "leader" of YOUR social group, take an honest look at the give-to-get ratio between you and each of your friends, and see if they really ARE all friends (which they may well be-NOT all followers are sycophants, thank goodness), or if any of them are just followers who are waiting to turn against you and flounce off to a new leader. If you're NOT the leader, look at your relationship with the one who is, and ask yourself if you're treating them as a friend... or if that admiration/gratitude/resentment thing is going on. And finally, if you've envied those that others flock to follow... I hope you've seen how lucky you are NOT to be one of them.
Does that not make sense? Do you wish that YOU were the sort of person who effortlessly attracted an appreciative audience, or that people would want to hang around with and look up to, or did you wish that as a kid? If so, prepare to be disillusioned, because there's NOTHING that any sane person would want about being the "center" of a group.
Yes, yes, it's nice to see that people think you're cool at a social gathering (for about 5 minutes, unless you're supremely shallow or naive)... but if you pause, or, heaven forbid, stumble, in your standup routine, impassioned monologue, or whatever, people will turn on a dime and ***poof***, they're gone, leaving you wondering how you could have thought they were so friendly, and why you bothered to exert the effort for them. This is a watered-down version of the dynamic every famous person experiences; people that are being entertained by you might act really friendly, but they do NOT want to be your friends... they want a one-way transfer of energy and enjoyment from you to them. Does that sound like something YOU would want? Me neither; years ago, I wised up and stopped being the floor show for people other than trusted friends.
It's not just attentive strangers you have watch out for if you're the gregarious and amusing sort; the REAL "danger" is sycophants, those fake, 2-faced, born-to-be-follower types who'll come out of the woodwork to gather around a "leader," basking in reflected glory, accepting the steady stream of love, support and assistance that comes from a leader (and it takes ALOT of time and effort to provide all of that, trust me), enjoying the ready-made social group and party atmosphere that the leader provides, and claiming eternal friendship... but, unlike with actual friendship, the follower doesn't give anything back, or even act as if they see the leader as a human being with needs and feelings (to which they should show sensitivity), one to whom they owe much and should be able to be counted on to reciprocate to at least once in a while. In other words, the one who's the center of attention, the center of the group, has the "honor" of making all the effort for everyone and getting nothing in return... how good does THAT sound to you?
Wait, it gets better: Any time the leader has a setback in their life, the sycophants will be sniggering and crowing about it behind their back... and sometimes to their face.... AND, if, or should I say WHEN, the leader does something to displease a sycophant, such as not being a doormat for them where bad behavior is concerned, the sycophant will turn on the leader like a rabid dog; the first clue the leader gets about this is usually snippy commentary about how "controlling" they are (you know, for being the one who makes all the effort for the others, which they've always been happy to lay back and accept, and even DEMAND), how they "expect people to kiss their feet," and other distortions of the dynamic of exactly whose idea the foot-kissy behavior WAS, and how the leader is overbearing, bossy, blah blah blah (never realizing how bad THEY would look if the person they followed like lapdogs really WAS all those terrible things)... and suddenly, the person who has exerted all of the effort, not to mention all of the caring, in the "relationship" suddenly finds themselves with, at best, someone who stalks off leaving bad feelings behind, or, at worst, an actual enemy.
What on Earth is behind this twisted behavior? I've heard that the Chinese character for gratitude is the same as the one for resentment... and that the character for admiration is the same as the one for resentment... probably NEITHER is true, but the point behind the belief that they ARE is one of the ugliest aspects of human nature; people, particularly weak and/or follower types, DO resent those that they see as "having superior qualities," because they feel lessened by comparison, and those who are able to give, because they HAVE something to give, while they see themselves as only being able to take.
The last time, both in the sense of most recent and, hopefully, in the sense of the final time in my life, that I got sucked in by this sort of thing is with the "psycho bitch" whose online destruction by the members of the forum she spent her life on I've chronicled several times on this blog; much as it pains me, I've learned that I have to bring somewhat of an accountant mentality to new relationships, and consciously measure whether what I'm getting back from each person is approximating what I'm giving them... followers are too lazy to give anything (which is of course part of why they're followers to begin with-being a leader, or even an independent, takes alot of work), but a FRIEND will automatically give back as fast as they receive.
If you're the "leader" of YOUR social group, take an honest look at the give-to-get ratio between you and each of your friends, and see if they really ARE all friends (which they may well be-NOT all followers are sycophants, thank goodness), or if any of them are just followers who are waiting to turn against you and flounce off to a new leader. If you're NOT the leader, look at your relationship with the one who is, and ask yourself if you're treating them as a friend... or if that admiration/gratitude/resentment thing is going on. And finally, if you've envied those that others flock to follow... I hope you've seen how lucky you are NOT to be one of them.
Monday, September 13, 2004
My feminine intuition applies to physics
I've said since I first heard about dark energy that it was nothing but an invention by the eggheads to try to make up for the errors in the math that went with their theories-heck, I just posted about it a couple of days ago. Today, I read in an article in the September issue of "Discover" called "Plucking the Strings of Relativity" written by the man who COINED the term "dark energy," professor of theoretical astrophysics and cosmology Michael Turner:
"Perhaps the most radical idea, and the one I am pursuing now, is that there's no dark energy at all. (Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.) Instead, our incomplete understanding of gravity is at fault, and when we understand it better, we'll no longer need to invoke dark energy."
"Perhaps the most radical idea, and the one I am pursuing now, is that there's no dark energy at all. (Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.) Instead, our incomplete understanding of gravity is at fault, and when we understand it better, we'll no longer need to invoke dark energy."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/plucking-the-strings-of-relativity/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
YES!!!!!!!! I can't tell you how satisfying it is to me to see the guy who invented the theory admitting that it's "fake," and to see that my intuitive grasp of the situation was RIGHT.
Since he made the point about "foolish consistency," I decided to try to think about this issue from the opposite side; what if there IS energy in the universe that's creating the effects that are making the equations come out wrong, but has thus far evaded detection? What could that energy be? What energy is there that I know of that science hasn't found yet? It finally, very belatedly, occurred to me that KARMA could be the "dark energy" that exerts a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) gravitational force that causes cosmic acceleration.
!!!!!!!!!!!! How could I have missed that possible connection all this time?
No, I still don't think that anything "hidden" is responsible for what the astrophysicists are observing, but it's mindblowing to me to see that I hadn't even considered the possibility of the role karma might be playing if it turned out that they were RIGHT about dark energy; I'm grateful to Professor Turner, both for admitting that he was wrong and for prodding me about the need to look at EVERY possibility in my search for the truth, even those that seem IMpossible to me.
YES!!!!!!!! I can't tell you how satisfying it is to me to see the guy who invented the theory admitting that it's "fake," and to see that my intuitive grasp of the situation was RIGHT.
Since he made the point about "foolish consistency," I decided to try to think about this issue from the opposite side; what if there IS energy in the universe that's creating the effects that are making the equations come out wrong, but has thus far evaded detection? What could that energy be? What energy is there that I know of that science hasn't found yet? It finally, very belatedly, occurred to me that KARMA could be the "dark energy" that exerts a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) gravitational force that causes cosmic acceleration.
!!!!!!!!!!!! How could I have missed that possible connection all this time?
No, I still don't think that anything "hidden" is responsible for what the astrophysicists are observing, but it's mindblowing to me to see that I hadn't even considered the possibility of the role karma might be playing if it turned out that they were RIGHT about dark energy; I'm grateful to Professor Turner, both for admitting that he was wrong and for prodding me about the need to look at EVERY possibility in my search for the truth, even those that seem IMpossible to me.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Some thoughts about 9-11
So much has been said about 9-11, at so much length, in so much detail, and with such extreme adjectives, that it's hard to grieve, in a way, because every grief-filled thought seems repetitive and derivative, whether in my head or written down.... still, I tried:
Part of what makes America great is our ability to care deeply about others, even total strangers. Did you know that the charitable giving that's standard for Americans is unheard of in some countries? And that the flood of well-wishes, gifts and $ that anyone whose hard-luck story makes the news gets is likewise unimaginable in many places? In America, even an ANIMAL that gets into the news will get $ and offers of adoption-that's how eager Americans are to get emotionally involved and give of themselves.
Our collective agony at the deaths of so many innocents at the hands of agents of evil is thus perfectly understandable, but it's not just that they died, but that they didn't die fighting, for their lives, for their loved ones, or for a cause... that their deaths were so utterly senseless. The loved ones of military personnel who die in action can have the comfort of knowing that their dearly departed died for something they believed in, but the innocents who died as the result of skulking, cowardly evil didn't get the chance to fight, or the choice to try to combat the enemy, so what comfort can THEIR loved ones find?
How many of those who died forgot to kiss a loved one good-bye that day, or had loved ones who forgot to kiss THEM? How many of them had people they loved that they never expressed that love to, or vice versa? How many of them had had fights with loved ones that they hadn't resolved, and now never CAN resolve? How many of them had loved ones that they hadn't contacted in far too long?
On the positive side, out of our grief at the tragedy of 9-11 came many good things, such as the surges in blood donations, charitable giving, volunteering, and patriotism... and, the biggest of all, and the best tribute to the fallen-the explosion of people contacting loved ones that had slipped out of their lives, telling them how they felt, and welcoming them back into their lives. I hope that the many who lost pieces of their hearts on 9-11 can take at least a little bit of comfort in that.
Part of what makes America great is our ability to care deeply about others, even total strangers. Did you know that the charitable giving that's standard for Americans is unheard of in some countries? And that the flood of well-wishes, gifts and $ that anyone whose hard-luck story makes the news gets is likewise unimaginable in many places? In America, even an ANIMAL that gets into the news will get $ and offers of adoption-that's how eager Americans are to get emotionally involved and give of themselves.
Our collective agony at the deaths of so many innocents at the hands of agents of evil is thus perfectly understandable, but it's not just that they died, but that they didn't die fighting, for their lives, for their loved ones, or for a cause... that their deaths were so utterly senseless. The loved ones of military personnel who die in action can have the comfort of knowing that their dearly departed died for something they believed in, but the innocents who died as the result of skulking, cowardly evil didn't get the chance to fight, or the choice to try to combat the enemy, so what comfort can THEIR loved ones find?
How many of those who died forgot to kiss a loved one good-bye that day, or had loved ones who forgot to kiss THEM? How many of them had people they loved that they never expressed that love to, or vice versa? How many of them had had fights with loved ones that they hadn't resolved, and now never CAN resolve? How many of them had loved ones that they hadn't contacted in far too long?
On the positive side, out of our grief at the tragedy of 9-11 came many good things, such as the surges in blood donations, charitable giving, volunteering, and patriotism... and, the biggest of all, and the best tribute to the fallen-the explosion of people contacting loved ones that had slipped out of their lives, telling them how they felt, and welcoming them back into their lives. I hope that the many who lost pieces of their hearts on 9-11 can take at least a little bit of comfort in that.
