1. The obligatory post.
2. What is it about this time of year?
3. The joy of singlemas.
As the winter season approaches faster than that train in the creepy christmas train movie with computer Tom Hanks, it is high time I make my annual declaration of singleness (and disatisfaction about that) to the world. Like the queen's speech, this annual address has echoed for years (mostly in my head before I had a blog, and possibly on my old blog which I can't find) but the story never changes. In a shocking return to personal life blogging, this christmas period truly is best served ice cold.
The stereotypes are true! Everywhere, everybody is in a couple! Not an exageration at all. I've spent another year predominantly lone wolfing but without sheep to hunt. Not to suggest I'm the butt of a welsh based sheep joke (please ignore the word butt). In the past month everyone seems to be developing the need for a lady (or a man) and the topic of relationships or this person or that person comes up more and more regularly. Though this can be difficult for me to detect, in the haze of my listenings to lusty and loving Prince tracks from 30 years, but its definitely on the rise. In the warm months it all goes to shit, but apparently now is the time for cuddly warm rendez-vous. Is that the only reason? I don't know. At the time of year I contemplate my achievements and future goals, I find myself wondering if I already met that special lady, but probably not because she's probably coupled up.
The power of beng single at Christmas has its advantages. Certainly you have fewer obligations, but if you're a tight git like me you also have less spending to do! Christmas is pretty silly if you think about it, I even considered abolishing gift giving in the family the other day (spend the money you would spend on others on yourself, and you will feel guilty). But alas I shall continue to mainstream and enjoy the bounty of another year's existence. You also get to spend all the time in the world hanging out with your single friends, many of whom I'm blessed with (for better or worse depending on their own worldview). It's always a little simpler too, and your emotions can be focused on how maddening this family gathering is and how much you fucking hate Shrek.
An appropriate song I just discovered. Sums it up quite well. Have a great December, there's a light at the end of the tunnel!
I was very impressed by the quality of written communication in the following blogs on the club scene. Here Mini gives an informative analysis of the flyers, aluding to the culture Anne describes. Dan takes the cake with a blow by blow account of why clubs so often blow. I often find myself wondering why I'm not like other students running around town drunk as if its a social experience so good you'll risk the most godawful feeling the morning after, physically if not also emotionally. But in a conversation with a friend, I think I hit the nail upon the head. Thanks Dan, you have inspired me. Edited for clarity, content hasn't been touched.
No Rihanna.... no....
You doing anything this weekend?
I think I'm writing an essay given lack of other options
Ohh dear
Not going out?
weekend is shit in York
Really?
yeah
I don't like anywhere enough to go there when it isn't a student night
Hmm
Don't meet anybody though...
you meet people in clubs?
Occasionally
no scope for conversation
Yeah, but your generally pissed as a fart and looking for something to hump at that point...
which is exactly not my m.o.
its a hollow place full of hollow people
drenched in hollow music
Thanks for that...
I don't mean people in clubs are hollow people all the time
but if as you say everyone is at that state of drunkenness they are only after sex
then you have totally eliminated the thing that makes them interesting and human
and you're left with a homogenised crowd of people
they are probably totally different in their day to day
Hmm
so if you're out to meet individuals
the club is not a place to do so
because you can't really meet the person
I have been out 1 time in York this term. I guess I enjoy being fresh faced and enjoying a long day's work or relaxation more than the drunken, forgotten euphoria that night outs are supposed to entail. And while I can understand having drunken shenanigans with your buds, a club is not the place to expand your social circle in a meaningful way. Not that I'm good at doing it teetotal.
Some vintage funk with an appropriately named Gil Scott Heron cover.
This one has been on the backburner for a little while. For want of another discussion topic (and believe me, the killing off of dictators and 'evil men' is something I will talk about one day, to someone), we're gonna turn to one of my most central precepts. You might call it rule 1.
Kudos to you if you know why this is relevant.
Rule 1: Never Settle
In life I think we have a lot of choices to make which can obviously be as simple as which type of crips you are gonna get in your meal deal in Sainsbury's or as complicated as selecting a life partner. You might go for ready salted because there were no roast chicken crisps, and this would be kind of disappointing but would leave little lasting effect. Still, if chicken crisps were what you were after and within grasp, why not strive for that? On the other hand, if the object of your desires has an intractable character flaw or you're just not as compatible as you would like, you may feel like you can't finish this relationship and find someone better suited to your antisocial quirks. It might be true, depending on what you believe. To inject some necessary platitudes there are plenty of fish in the sea, if you love someone set them free (thanks for the save Sting) blah blah blah. Point remains, if there is a possibility of getting a better deal, or essentially of being happier and more satisfied, change it up and aim for success rather than settling for something which is acceptable.
I have simplified a lot of things there, and of course it can be dangerous to continually stop settling. There is a danger of 'grass is always greener'ing (another marvellous platitude there for you). But I feel like my point stands that if you know you can do something, and it is the best thing to do, then you should let nothing stop you! Hell, even if you're not sure you can make a difference, why not try? If it should be done, let it be done! Where would we be if we decided that the boundaries of what we know or think were insurmountable and that we could not innovate or push out. I would not be writing a blog for one. It might take great effort but you know what they say, a change is as good as a rest.
This has got awfully convoluted already. I'm gonna try and be clearer from now on.
To summarise: compromise can be a helpful tool in negotiation, and a necessity in life. It can in fact help you get the best deal possible. BUT reserve your compromise until your other options to gain the upper hand have been exhausted, because without trying to improve, to reach your goals and to reach the peak of satisfaction compromise is merely a hollow gesture that will remind you of what could have been and what you are missing. This past week I read a quotation from Karl Pilkington which resonated.
"Your dreams should never be better than your life. Unless you're a sloth. Cos then you're asleep most the time."
Now take your Acid Jazz to reinforce the possibilities of your mind. And get out.
I told myself I should find more levity in life, what with the governments and civilisation headed into the shit as fast as... well shit off a shovel I guess. Ashes to ashes, shit to shit. On the other hand, my supervisor suggested I write more often and who want's to read happy thoughts? The point is I'm completely ignoring that search for happiness and focusing on something I realised I disliked when a man stopped me in the street on Monday morning.
"That's a very stripey shirt, I'm not gonna lie."
A particularly normal day at the office.
Thanks for your honesty.
There are undeniably stripes there, in a very striking way. It is a striped shirt. That's why I bought it. You're probably realising I'm not concerned with his proclamation that the shirt is stripey (and probably the dark of the night sky some minutes later). I take umbridge to the latter half of his sentence.
'I'm not gonna lie' is simultaneously seen as 'endeering' by the non-liar and 'cause for concern' by anyone who can interpret language. If you have to apend your truthfulness onto the end of a sentence, does that mean everything else you say is a lie? If so, your friendly statement just made me very aware. Spectacular in its entirely opposite-to-intended effect and its superfluousness, akin to 'no offense but' and 'I'm not racist but' ,I feel we should drop this phrase from our book of phrases.
In an ideal world, the encounter would have gone like this.
"That shirt is fucking stripey."
"For real."
No 'to be honest' or 'honestly' or 'in all truthfulness' needed, thank you. Now, I will confess that I am guilty of having used some of these extensively in the past and now that seems ridiculous to me. So, as part of my self-improvement drive I will now wipe these constructions from my mind and instead of subconsciously giving the wrong impression that I'm a pathological liar I will hide my true intentions away. That's the high road right?
Thank you to Mini for inspiring me to write this 'opus' surely the best song I will ever write (and everyone is obliged to know the words, come on there's only like 1 verse which gets repeated a couple of times.) I feel whilst I could have gone with Mr Darksyde, a tale about the Predacon ship captained by Megatron in Beast Wars but instead I went for something with maximum mainstream appeal because as we all know this is the font from which all the finest entertainment springs. Also note the lack of rhyming, just like the real song. Also note the lack of rhyming, just like the real song. Onwards and upwards.
Harry's as lyrically clumsy as he is stupid.
Coming out of my meditation chamber
And I've been doing the Emperor's work;
Putting rebels down because I love the Empire.
It started out with the loss of my limbs and the death of my wife and child.
I ended up in this life-support suit.
I was becoming a sith, was becoming a sith.
Now I'm duelling with Luke
And his technique is tactically deficient.
While he's falling down stairs
I'm slash, parry and stab.
Now we're out on a weather vain
And my saber stroke cuts off his hand.
Now I'm inside his head
And he's clutching his stub
Now, I say he's my son
Now, he's letting go...
And I picture myself killing the Emperor
And taking control.
Jealousy, turning Jedi towards tyranny.
Charting the Falcon's trajectory course.
Choking with the power of the force.
Rule by my side, my son! Luke it is your destiny!
The remnants of your rebellion die.
The power of the Darkside.
etc.
Noooooooo...
Noooooooo...
Nooooooooooooooo...
Nooooooooooooooo...
Alex Smith eat your heart out (and replace with protective armour and control panel).
I'm increasingly concerned that we're not allowed to change our minds any more.
"You're going to change your mind a thousand times. That's a good thing. Only imbeciles never change their minds." ~ Anna Rascouët-Paz
Reading this quote from the French journalist, I was reminded of a conversation I had the other day; should a job applicant be turned away from their interview if they redid the first year of university 3 times having changed their course. We decided it was unfair, but that the applicant would probably appear somehow too indecisive to employ in anything but the short term. Can we really equate a change in educational aspirations with a lack of commitment to a career? Beyond a contractual obligation why should we be expected to be loyal to a job?
We observe throughout history that adaption or a change in direction has been necessary to preserve a way of life, or to push a company to greatness. Rome welcomed Goths into its fold, the industrial revolution came rumbling from our agricultural and household industrial stagnation, even Apple computers refocused on mobile devices with the iPod and its parodically named spin-offs. These have been seen as essential, even perhaps triumphant changes in tack. The phrase 'a leopard never changes his spots' is damning of those who refuse to be consistent. Yet society still operates on a double standard where a significant change of heart and mind is only acceptable some of the time.
Politics is an area where I am particularly concerned that consitency is being praised above success. This aged article may not be relevant in its subject matter but it does illustrate my problem. A party or a single politician is seen as being weak for having changed their mind, and here Gordon Brown uses inconsistency as grounds for political criticism. Consistent opinion should not be a criterion for success or popularity, yet there is a trend in current politics that says it is essential. I do however see the other side of the argument, that inconsistency on certain issues and policies can be threatening and damaging. Janet Daley's comments on Obama and Cameron show a lack of cohesion in foreign policy, something which could cause problems in the future if there is a perception of 'favouritism'. Nevertheless, does inconsistency mean certain failure or could it be an important step to approaching each challenge in its own context, unbound by rigid policy that could restrict governments from making the correct decision? A difficult question.
On top of my soapbox I urge us to judge our leaders, or employees and our fellow people on Earth not by the strength or longevity of their decision but on more important things such as getting it right. A consistently stubborn, poor choice is not a desirable feature.
The monstrous Skindred will play us out with the track Choices and Decisions.
I was having a discussion with my friend Joe (whose shamefully neglected blog is here) a propos religious beliefs which stirred me to write about an issue I have been grappling with for a while. I make no secret of being an agnostic and a humanist. Could there be a God? Is there evidence for there being a God? I have, in the past fortnight, compared myself to Jesus and my phone to Lazarus after my successful resurrection, to the disdain of a Catholic in my company. I do not however, look down on the religious. I wonder, though, whether many of the people who belong to organised religions actually take their religion seriously; in turn, is following of a religious scripture or teacher to the letter an ideal behaviour or the definition of dangerous fundamentalism? Inspired by Stevo's experiences with the 'pious' detailed in his fine blog, Studenting, I'm moved to explore the issue. In this most serious of my blog posts, I will weigh in my views and hopefully figure out what I actually think once I've hashed it out in front of your very eyes.
The water of thoughts into the judgement of wine. Not my best metaphor.
If I ever became religious I know that in doing do I would attempt to follow every rule in the holy book. Rather digressing, I wonder why I would subject myself to someone else's prescribed way of life but let's pretend I do understand that mindset. By choosing an organised religion I would expect to follow the precepts otherwise what would the point be in being a part of the religion? So in a sense I would expect followers of, for example, the Catholic Church to obey all of the Pope's teachings, to study the bible and live by its rules to the letter. Is this an unreasonable point of view?
A quick discussion with my dad brought up a question of forgiveness. This concept, central to Christianity obviously, seems to forgive transgressions and in some sense permits adaption and bending of the rules to suit different needs or situations. Not necessarily a bad thing. I do wonder though if the concept of the shepherd and his flock was invented by naughty men to justify their disobedience? If we view organised religions as relics of a bygone age, in which they were necessary socio-politico-economic tools to guide a less moral and more maleable population towards the will of the rulers. Perhaps this is overly cynical. I'm inclined to think of this as a pertinent question and those who would censor it as afraid.
Linked to this atmosphere of questioning the status quo, dogmatism, or the stubborn clinging to beliefs even against crippling evidence that these are ill founded, is a major issue. In a world where people often confuse belief, or personal opinion, with true facts (Q: Why, in theist circles, does the belief in a deity equate to its existence?[thanks Mark, whose blog is here]) it can be difficult to tell somebody that their 'opinion' is wrong. In absense of the population clearing up its vocabulary, the problem can only be exasperated by the inclusion of religious belief in a world of increasing skepticism and irreligiousness. Does genuine dogmatism become galvanised by this hostile, cynical environment and lead to a violent zeal and agressive fundamentalism that we read about on the news?
I feel like Mini with his Tracy Jordan images.
At this point I should say I have realised my beliefs so the rest of the post might be more cogent.
I am of course entirely against violence (we've had our fair share now, enough to make kickass entertainment of all sorts) and we have learnt enough to know that even the victor of a brawl is a loser. As such the prospect of religious wars or extremism that we have seen throughout the world throughout history to me is abhorent and I would not be seen to be supporting such people. If I assume that this is the inevitable product of total religious obedience in today's world (I won't even approach the idea that devotees can be used by faith leaders after indoctrination) then I shun such an approach to one's spirituality. Where does that leave me?
It leaves me to believe that organised religion has no real place in a moderate and cooperating utopian world (forged by my hand via eugenics and targetted thought policing). In our real world, organised religion should only exist if you are willing to follow it properly and to the letter and because of this rigidity it can unfortunately be dangerous depending on the teachings (and I don't believe any are beyond reproach in this regard). This is not to cast all of those who individually come to the same conclusions as wrong-doers, that is how religious organisations are formed and there is much good to be found in all of them in my opinion. I think however that when, within these institutions, ideas do split then it is not a debate issue but a reason to dissolve the organisation because you can't agree on it so you're not the same thing any more. A divorce of opinion in the catholic church, for example, really means you're not all under the same church any more.
My primary thrust, though, concerns the majority of people involved in religion. To those guys, who are in a church or what have you but do not conform to all of its teachings or beliefs, you are not making what you want of your prescribed religion (in saying that you are only fooling yourself and those around you). You are creating your own religion. Be proud, you have developed a moral code entirely divorced from your deity. Your god is an embodiment of your own morality, regardless of the existence of Allah or Yahweh or Brahma or whatever. You decide what is right and wrong. You don't even need to realise you're doing it. But please try and realise, because by association a lot of organised religions are bringing you down. And also know that atheists are the same as you but without the pretext; I am my own God.
Hope this wasn't too extreme, if it was then maybe you have misunderstood or we just can't agree. If you're a friend of God you can still be a friend of mine. Perhaps next time I can try and reconcile religion and socialism (not sure I can).
