So did you ever wonder why it is that we know that if you put a frog in regular temperature water and then start to boil it that it will not jump out of the pot but slowly boil to death? Well it’s simple. Because someone thought it would be interesting to boil a frog in a pot. I have a fundamental issue with this. Now I understand there is a general argument for the fair and ethical treatment of animals and that is a well documented principle followed by many, and personified by the organization PETA. So this is no revolutionary ideal. But the average person is simply thinking about respecting animals and not hurting them. Maybe they just love their animal and think all should be treated with respect or maybe it is that they have a holistic principle that entails that animals and humans are equal (or at least should be treated equally). This is a fair start in regards to why the above treatment should not be done. The bottom line is that an animal’s life is no more or less important than a human beings life.
As human beings – the dominant species on the planet – we collectively believe that we can do as we wish with the world and those in it. There is no amount of respect, responsibility, or civilization in humanity as a whole. This does not stop at mere animals, our closest relative, but goes further to all living – and perhaps non-living things – on this earth. I always find it amusing to hear a vegetarian say that they are against the killing of animals and thus they do not eat meat, but they have no problem with the cutting, killing, and eating of plants. What is the difference? Only in our mind is there something different between the two. We can break down the world in different species, but the problem then arises when we consciously and subconsciously rank them as too order of importance. People have no problem killing a spider, or a bug of some sort. “icky” little creatures that inspire fear in many. So we just kill them. This is wrong. I mean it goes without saying that we live in one ecosystem that balances itself through the lives and non-lives of all mater and things in it. Everything has its place and its role. Remove something and perhaps something else will step into that role – but at what cost? And is it sustainable? This line of inquiry is again simple and obvious for people to grasp, yet this rationale does not seem to be doing the trick as people don’t follow it.
Ultimately, this all comes back to our everyday ‘ranking’ system of importance in the world. By doing this we are claiming that we as human beings are ‘better’ than other things in the world. It is odd that if you ask a number of people are they better than another person – I mean 'inherently' and wholly prior to development and socialization (i.e. One person feeling better than a black person because they are white). A great deal (and hopefully a huge majority) of people would not claim that they are intrinsically better than another human being, but what if you asked them: are you better than a spider, a cockroach, a monkey, what about an amoeba? I don’t think most people would get past laughing to actually truly answer the question. It is taken for granted that human beings are the ‘higher’ species on the planet and that we can control – and deserve to control – the rest of the world simply due to our dominant abilities. But where is the responsibility in this situation (after all 'with great power, comes great responsibility”), where is the civility? I keep coming back to the idea of civilization. But I truly believe that this is encompassed in the ability to rise above basic animal instincts, to dismiss the desires to do as you wish, to dominate others, and to act in the greater good of humanity and the world in a 'civilized' manner.
What does this mean though? “The greater good of humanity and the world.” People don’t tend to be able to put things in context, to see beyond the world directly in front of their face. Is this because we are inherently shallow as human beings or because we just have not been socialized or taught to see holistically and/or in terms of the world as it exists itself? I would say it is because this is not what we are taught to do. I remember early in a graduate program one professor challenging my depth of thinking on one issue and pushed me to take my thinking wholly and completely outside the box and to creatively go beyond the simple object in front of me. It hit like a light switch, and all of a sudden I saw things differently. Why would it be that only I would be the one to experience such a thing and to see things in this context. I learned this, as many others have. It is just that we – as a collective social whole – have not been presented with and taught to see contextually in this respect.
We must rise above the narrow view of here and now, and understand that ‘here and now’ are much broader than we generally imagine today. Only by seeing the world collectively/wholly together and respecting it collectively/wholly together – bugs, plants, animals, bacteria, dirt, etc – can we attempt to show the world, and all it entails, the mutual love that it deserves.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Equally Unequal
Why is it that we talk of wanting equality, yet still use it primarily only as it suits us? Hopefully I do not have to explain my stances on equality in all aspects of life – including gender – more than my blog already posits – but I will state again at the beginning of this that I truly and wholly believe in the equality of all. However, I find it amusing that we as people – despite claiming the same ideals – do not in fact hold ourselves strictly to this.
Let us take male female interaction. Women should be treated equally in the work world, unfortunately they are not. They still make less money than men in similar positions – a travesty. This trend is certainly lessening, and this can give us hope. In life and culture the equal rights movement has come a long way. Fifty years ago the general stereotypes put women at home, and men as the primary 'breadwinner'. Women cooked and cleaned, raised children, and did 'woman's work'. There were cultural roles, taboos, and places that women were not allowed to enter (and I should say that a great deal of the non-western world is still very sadly like this). Luckily emancipation has decreased some barriers in the West, and at the same time opportunities have greatly increased. Men are in the kitchen, cooking, cleaning, and doing other work once looked at as for 'women'. Western culture – young culture and 'progressive' culture specifically – has embraced equality like this. Yet why is it that some women, while truly benefiting from this and even pushing for it, still insist upon a man asking them out? That a man should pay for their dinner or their drink? I can understand these things 50, 100 years ago, etc strictly along pragmatic lines. If a women didn't have a job, or culturally it was unacceptable for them to 'ask' a man to do something in public, things can be understood. Yet how is it that today, in 2009 a progressive women would expect a man to pay for her? If both are equal, neither one predisposed to being 'barefoot and pregnant', then why must these old stereotypes remain? If women want equality, then they can not pick and choose which parts they want, just as minorities can not either, and men should not pick and choose what powers to give up. If someone wants equality in the work place, you need to take it at home or out. Think of it like this. Gender does not exist. You walk out of your house and there are two people there. They are not man or woman, they are two people. They both (in an ideal world) have the same opportunities, they both bring equally important perspectives and experiences in life to the table. They both should be there under their own accord, and should be willing to accept each other on completely equal standards. If women want to go back to having men pay for them, they should be willing to go back to being barefoot and pregnant, just as if men want to go back to dominating relationships, they need to be prepared to give up a females income for the home.
The bottom line is that unfortunately our culture is founded upon inequality. This is obviously a bad thing, and something we are trying to move away from. Yet we are doing it selectively and hypocritically in many senses. Luckily (for inequality only) our economic conditions have quickly put us in a place where we have to find more equality economically whether we want to or not as it has become so tough now to live a life on one income today – let alone one income for a whole family.
So lets do this. Lets look at everyone as equal (I mean we should have been doing this from the beginning of time anyway). Men, stop being threatened by strong powerful women – face it, that individual can do things you can't, and perhaps some would even argue that biologically women as a whole can do some specific things better than men (this of course is claimed visa versa as well). And Women, realize that you should not be beholden to any man. You have every right to do as you please, as if on an equal playing field – live as you please. Any interaction is simply about two people coming to the table – not man, not women – two people.
Let us take male female interaction. Women should be treated equally in the work world, unfortunately they are not. They still make less money than men in similar positions – a travesty. This trend is certainly lessening, and this can give us hope. In life and culture the equal rights movement has come a long way. Fifty years ago the general stereotypes put women at home, and men as the primary 'breadwinner'. Women cooked and cleaned, raised children, and did 'woman's work'. There were cultural roles, taboos, and places that women were not allowed to enter (and I should say that a great deal of the non-western world is still very sadly like this). Luckily emancipation has decreased some barriers in the West, and at the same time opportunities have greatly increased. Men are in the kitchen, cooking, cleaning, and doing other work once looked at as for 'women'. Western culture – young culture and 'progressive' culture specifically – has embraced equality like this. Yet why is it that some women, while truly benefiting from this and even pushing for it, still insist upon a man asking them out? That a man should pay for their dinner or their drink? I can understand these things 50, 100 years ago, etc strictly along pragmatic lines. If a women didn't have a job, or culturally it was unacceptable for them to 'ask' a man to do something in public, things can be understood. Yet how is it that today, in 2009 a progressive women would expect a man to pay for her? If both are equal, neither one predisposed to being 'barefoot and pregnant', then why must these old stereotypes remain? If women want equality, then they can not pick and choose which parts they want, just as minorities can not either, and men should not pick and choose what powers to give up. If someone wants equality in the work place, you need to take it at home or out. Think of it like this. Gender does not exist. You walk out of your house and there are two people there. They are not man or woman, they are two people. They both (in an ideal world) have the same opportunities, they both bring equally important perspectives and experiences in life to the table. They both should be there under their own accord, and should be willing to accept each other on completely equal standards. If women want to go back to having men pay for them, they should be willing to go back to being barefoot and pregnant, just as if men want to go back to dominating relationships, they need to be prepared to give up a females income for the home.
The bottom line is that unfortunately our culture is founded upon inequality. This is obviously a bad thing, and something we are trying to move away from. Yet we are doing it selectively and hypocritically in many senses. Luckily (for inequality only) our economic conditions have quickly put us in a place where we have to find more equality economically whether we want to or not as it has become so tough now to live a life on one income today – let alone one income for a whole family.
So lets do this. Lets look at everyone as equal (I mean we should have been doing this from the beginning of time anyway). Men, stop being threatened by strong powerful women – face it, that individual can do things you can't, and perhaps some would even argue that biologically women as a whole can do some specific things better than men (this of course is claimed visa versa as well). And Women, realize that you should not be beholden to any man. You have every right to do as you please, as if on an equal playing field – live as you please. Any interaction is simply about two people coming to the table – not man, not women – two people.
Challenging Love
I just thought of a sports analogy that is ignored in 'real' life (I know this blog is fairly anti-competitive, and this point does not want to take anything away from that stance, so bare with this point please). In order for someone or something to be the best this status must be proven regularly, repeatedly, and sustained. This is a simple logical truth regarding competition and ranking. This point being said, think about what it takes not to rank oneself against others but merely to challenge one's own self.
What is it that makes us sharper? In sports it is said that you can only get better by challenging yourself, you get better by going against the best. Challenging yourself daily, or perhaps repeatedly, is the only way to hone, develop, and maintain a skill-set. I could go on for days about how it is these moments that challenge us that confirm our resolve, make us 'better', stronger, more convicted, etc. It is essential to keep pushing ourselves or striving to be better if we want to expect consistent of greater things of ourselves and to try to live up to these expectations. Sports, business, life. Challenge yourself and your strengths show through and new strengths you didn't know you had come about. A diamond is created by pressure. Heard that before?
Now take this line of thought and apply it to relationships. We get involved in relationships, yet we don't challenge them. We don't truly test them. It is only in the face of temptation that a true relationship is tested. You will not love something that you haven't struggled with or fought for. But it is not about fighting, it is about testing yourself, challenging yourself. Why don't we do this as a culture? It is not viewed as appropriate to spend time with another person if you are involved in a relationship. There is fear, hesitation, worry. But why? Why are we so hesitant to find out if the one we are with is really where we want to be? We get upset about 'cheating', yet there is plenty of doubt – both scientific and practical – as to whether humans are wholly monogamous creatures. Society has created a culture that values, rewards, and expects a settling of us into monogamous relationships (case in point legal rewards for marriage, tax breaks, etc.). What would biology say about this? Are we not here simply to procreate the species?
This being said, 'wo/man' is said to be a social being and need human to human compassion and caring. So where is the happy medium? To me, I think it is about testing oneself, and one's relationships. If you are involved with someone, don't you want them to know they want to be with you? Why are they not challenging themselves daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Etc? The more people you spend time with the more you realize what you want in life. To me, I think we should all be looking at things openly. Life should be about two things. Honesty, and following what one thinks is the right thing and thus wants to do. (yes, again this can be seen to conflict with other posts – but it does not. If society constructs individuals to think more inclusively about society and beyond themselves, then their desires will reflect more of the stuff I have been talking about in other posts). In relationships, it seems that we end up committing and staying together out of a subconscious belief in duty and responsibility, yet more realistically mostly in failure (as the divorce rates keep rising). I believe relationships should be about openness, and a contextual understanding that allows us all to realize that we want people to be involved with us because they ultimately want to, not because they have to. How many people have been or are in relationships that feel confining, or entrapping? Most people have been at some point, yet could they spend time with other people to either be reaffirmed, or to find a better option? It is so common to go away and miss someone, or to spend time with someone else, and realize that ultimately the time apart simply shows that you are fine where you are. “The simple thought of her means more to me than another's presence.” Good quote, but how do you know until you have been both away and in another's presence?
As a society, we need to open ourselves to being more friendly, more open, and more experimentative. Nothing is known without trying to know it. And yet what is the best way to learn, is it by doing it or by not doing it? I think it takes both. Just as no athlete will ever reach their peak training on their own, so is the case with human's and relationships. We will never truly find our place without constant challenge to our current place – both in presence and absence. Learning through failure is just as important – if not more so – than learning through success.
What is it that makes us sharper? In sports it is said that you can only get better by challenging yourself, you get better by going against the best. Challenging yourself daily, or perhaps repeatedly, is the only way to hone, develop, and maintain a skill-set. I could go on for days about how it is these moments that challenge us that confirm our resolve, make us 'better', stronger, more convicted, etc. It is essential to keep pushing ourselves or striving to be better if we want to expect consistent of greater things of ourselves and to try to live up to these expectations. Sports, business, life. Challenge yourself and your strengths show through and new strengths you didn't know you had come about. A diamond is created by pressure. Heard that before?
Now take this line of thought and apply it to relationships. We get involved in relationships, yet we don't challenge them. We don't truly test them. It is only in the face of temptation that a true relationship is tested. You will not love something that you haven't struggled with or fought for. But it is not about fighting, it is about testing yourself, challenging yourself. Why don't we do this as a culture? It is not viewed as appropriate to spend time with another person if you are involved in a relationship. There is fear, hesitation, worry. But why? Why are we so hesitant to find out if the one we are with is really where we want to be? We get upset about 'cheating', yet there is plenty of doubt – both scientific and practical – as to whether humans are wholly monogamous creatures. Society has created a culture that values, rewards, and expects a settling of us into monogamous relationships (case in point legal rewards for marriage, tax breaks, etc.). What would biology say about this? Are we not here simply to procreate the species?
This being said, 'wo/man' is said to be a social being and need human to human compassion and caring. So where is the happy medium? To me, I think it is about testing oneself, and one's relationships. If you are involved with someone, don't you want them to know they want to be with you? Why are they not challenging themselves daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Etc? The more people you spend time with the more you realize what you want in life. To me, I think we should all be looking at things openly. Life should be about two things. Honesty, and following what one thinks is the right thing and thus wants to do. (yes, again this can be seen to conflict with other posts – but it does not. If society constructs individuals to think more inclusively about society and beyond themselves, then their desires will reflect more of the stuff I have been talking about in other posts). In relationships, it seems that we end up committing and staying together out of a subconscious belief in duty and responsibility, yet more realistically mostly in failure (as the divorce rates keep rising). I believe relationships should be about openness, and a contextual understanding that allows us all to realize that we want people to be involved with us because they ultimately want to, not because they have to. How many people have been or are in relationships that feel confining, or entrapping? Most people have been at some point, yet could they spend time with other people to either be reaffirmed, or to find a better option? It is so common to go away and miss someone, or to spend time with someone else, and realize that ultimately the time apart simply shows that you are fine where you are. “The simple thought of her means more to me than another's presence.” Good quote, but how do you know until you have been both away and in another's presence?
As a society, we need to open ourselves to being more friendly, more open, and more experimentative. Nothing is known without trying to know it. And yet what is the best way to learn, is it by doing it or by not doing it? I think it takes both. Just as no athlete will ever reach their peak training on their own, so is the case with human's and relationships. We will never truly find our place without constant challenge to our current place – both in presence and absence. Learning through failure is just as important – if not more so – than learning through success.
Columbus Day
Why is it that America celebrates this day? After all, it is well argued that Lief Ericson discovered the Americas first, and even that the Chinese may also have nearly a century earlier. Yet it is not in fact this moment that we celebrate, but the myth of Columbus day itself that we try to remember. It is the idea of what this day really stands for in our eyes that we want to show – the beginning of 'civilized' Europe's expansion to the Americas. The interesting thing about it though, is that this is not a celebratory day, especially for the native Americans that were were displaced by this expansion. The hundreds of thousands (or millions) that were killed in what would be considered genocide today would certainly not look at Western expansion in a celebratory manor.
In fact Columbus day is really a day to celebrate the beginning of the Westernization of 'America' and the Western expansion of the world in general. It is not about a man, or a discovery, but about a shifting moment in time. The time in world history where a 'new' world became available for use, and in 'American' history where the country began to become who/what it is today. The problem is, that what was done to get to today, and also where the country actually is now are not exactly celebratory things. Columbus was nothing more than another arrogant imperial Westerner. He looked down upon the local population and saw them as easily malleable and conquerable. He was merrily a pawn in the Western game of dominance. But this type of statement has been laid out innumerably elsewhere (i.e.: xxx, yyy)
The key to understanding Columbus day is not about the man's legacy, it is about this very myth of what America would become, what this time had ushered in. It began the Westernization of the world. This is in fact what we now commemorate. The day the world stood still, and one of the greatest travesties the world has been privy to (and especially since the Bubonic Plague of the 13/14th centuries) began to take shape... Western expansion and expropriation of both the physical and social world. In fact, the expropriation and enslavement of the rest of humanity.
In fact Columbus day is really a day to celebrate the beginning of the Westernization of 'America' and the Western expansion of the world in general. It is not about a man, or a discovery, but about a shifting moment in time. The time in world history where a 'new' world became available for use, and in 'American' history where the country began to become who/what it is today. The problem is, that what was done to get to today, and also where the country actually is now are not exactly celebratory things. Columbus was nothing more than another arrogant imperial Westerner. He looked down upon the local population and saw them as easily malleable and conquerable. He was merrily a pawn in the Western game of dominance. But this type of statement has been laid out innumerably elsewhere (i.e.: xxx, yyy)
The key to understanding Columbus day is not about the man's legacy, it is about this very myth of what America would become, what this time had ushered in. It began the Westernization of the world. This is in fact what we now commemorate. The day the world stood still, and one of the greatest travesties the world has been privy to (and especially since the Bubonic Plague of the 13/14th centuries) began to take shape... Western expansion and expropriation of both the physical and social world. In fact, the expropriation and enslavement of the rest of humanity.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Timely Awareness
What is a minute? An hour? A mile? A kilometer? They are all nothing. Images in a mind manufactured from the imagination of a simple human being. When I am running, my body doesn't know the 'time' I have been running for, and it does not know how 'far' I have gone, it simply knows that it is working. It knows that the heart is being asked to do more, that the muscles are being asked to exert more, and the adrenal gland simply knows it must exert itself. When you get to a point of fatigue where the muscles have gone past that present day's threshold, they simple start working differently and the chemical needs and compositions of them change. We feel fatigued, our muscles tighten up, we struggle for more oxygen, etc. Our body does not know that we have just run for 30 minutes, there was no switch that flipped and said 'time's up'. The reason for this is that A; our body doesn't care about time but only about its own physical capability. And more importantly, B; that that 30 minutes could very easily be 15 minutes if we simply defined what a 'minute' is differently. If a minute was 120 seconds rather than 60, our lives would change (even though they really wouldn't). A day would be 12 hours long, 6 o'clock would be midday and there wouldn't be any debate over 12 versus 24 hour clocks. The earth rotates on its access in a certain time period, why must it be '24' hours when this period could just as easily have been broken up into different definitional segments. Our bodies don't care, the earth doesn't care, we only care socially.
The point is that the measurements we have created are arbitrary. An inch? A foot? A millimeter? A kilogram? A liter or a ton? We have made them all up, and they could just as easily be changed. Yet the problem with these measurements is that our lives are completely governed and dictated by them. Think about it. Your entire day is ruled by time. What time did you get up this morning? What time did you have to be at work? What time are you meeting your friends after work? What time does your daughter leave school? Obviously, as mentioned the name given to these times is completely arbitrary and could just as easily have a different label which would not change our lives much. Therefore it is the concept of time itself that we need to address. Why is it that we must live our lives to such a strict accord? Think about how much time you mentally spend thinking about, or putting pressure upon yourself in the name of time? The alarm clock, getting ready to go to work, meeting friends, a deadline for a project, getting to a meeting, the list goes on and on. We live our lives as slaves to our own contrived definition of time. We have made our own master and yet have absolutely no control over it. If you really want to open your mind to it, what really is the problem when/if a person is late for something? Realistically, the only reason to worry, or only thing affected by it, is that the rest of your (and perhaps another's) time and schedule may be thrown off. So you rush to keep yourself rushing, to keep yourself under the pressure of time.
Now I understand that time provides us with organization and a measurable mechanism to more easily interact in life and with others. But why must we become slaves to it? Imagine a world with no clocks? You woke up as you wished, you went to work as you wished, did what needed to be done, left as per the sun's position, darkness, whatever. I am not specifically saying this is ideal, but think of the freedom you would feel if you never 'had' to be somewhere at a certain time, or 'had' to do something by a certain time? Some people may enjoy the rigidity and discipline of the clock. But the point worth making is not that we should have one or the other – measured time or unmeasured time – but that we should understand that time is quite possibly the largest and most consistent pressure and causer of stress in our lives. As slaves to its will we are constantly rushing to be somewhere or get something done. This hurts us personally. Puts a weight on our shoulders (and immune system) that is entirely man made and controllable.
So please, see time for what it is: a man made and contrived entity that – in actuality – is truly flexible and forgiving despite its fictitious appearance of rigidity. Remember, your body does not know what a minute or a mile is, it does not know what time is bedtime or how long it takes to get to work. And honestly, it does not care (at least not until you weigh it and its immune system down with the stress that time pressures put upon it by our hectic lives). Your body lives and feels absently of the world's arbitrary social measures. So don't spend so much time dictating to your body how it should live its life. It knows. Its tired or its not, its bored or its not, it has energy or it doesn't. Learn to live more by feel than by forceful social dictate.
The point is that the measurements we have created are arbitrary. An inch? A foot? A millimeter? A kilogram? A liter or a ton? We have made them all up, and they could just as easily be changed. Yet the problem with these measurements is that our lives are completely governed and dictated by them. Think about it. Your entire day is ruled by time. What time did you get up this morning? What time did you have to be at work? What time are you meeting your friends after work? What time does your daughter leave school? Obviously, as mentioned the name given to these times is completely arbitrary and could just as easily have a different label which would not change our lives much. Therefore it is the concept of time itself that we need to address. Why is it that we must live our lives to such a strict accord? Think about how much time you mentally spend thinking about, or putting pressure upon yourself in the name of time? The alarm clock, getting ready to go to work, meeting friends, a deadline for a project, getting to a meeting, the list goes on and on. We live our lives as slaves to our own contrived definition of time. We have made our own master and yet have absolutely no control over it. If you really want to open your mind to it, what really is the problem when/if a person is late for something? Realistically, the only reason to worry, or only thing affected by it, is that the rest of your (and perhaps another's) time and schedule may be thrown off. So you rush to keep yourself rushing, to keep yourself under the pressure of time.
Now I understand that time provides us with organization and a measurable mechanism to more easily interact in life and with others. But why must we become slaves to it? Imagine a world with no clocks? You woke up as you wished, you went to work as you wished, did what needed to be done, left as per the sun's position, darkness, whatever. I am not specifically saying this is ideal, but think of the freedom you would feel if you never 'had' to be somewhere at a certain time, or 'had' to do something by a certain time? Some people may enjoy the rigidity and discipline of the clock. But the point worth making is not that we should have one or the other – measured time or unmeasured time – but that we should understand that time is quite possibly the largest and most consistent pressure and causer of stress in our lives. As slaves to its will we are constantly rushing to be somewhere or get something done. This hurts us personally. Puts a weight on our shoulders (and immune system) that is entirely man made and controllable.
So please, see time for what it is: a man made and contrived entity that – in actuality – is truly flexible and forgiving despite its fictitious appearance of rigidity. Remember, your body does not know what a minute or a mile is, it does not know what time is bedtime or how long it takes to get to work. And honestly, it does not care (at least not until you weigh it and its immune system down with the stress that time pressures put upon it by our hectic lives). Your body lives and feels absently of the world's arbitrary social measures. So don't spend so much time dictating to your body how it should live its life. It knows. Its tired or its not, its bored or its not, it has energy or it doesn't. Learn to live more by feel than by forceful social dictate.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Omnipresent Values
Imagine this... what if in fact there was something or someone that saw everything that you ever did. An all knowing big brother type camera watching you at all times. No this is not god or any such entity, but merely a way that everyone on earth – family, friends, colleagues, strangers, and so on – could see every move you make and hear everything you say. Would you live your life differently? If you want to be considered as an honest person, you would have to be thinking that everything you do and say would be known and the judgment of you would not be as per the information that you chose to tell each individual person, but as per everything you said to each individual person and everything you did. Obviously, some people might cry civil liberties and government intervention, but that is not what I'm talking about – no CCTV cameras everywhere. I am talking about living one's life to a certain standard. If you are an environmentalist, and were being judged by your peers on every action, would you use the paper towels in the washroom if they could see you? If you thought you were an integrity type and you knew everyone would see the truth of the white lie, would you tell it? If you were a politician and all of your constituents could see you in the back room, would you still make that deal?
I believe that we have to hold ourselves to a higher ideal. It becomes easy in life to bend our rules and principles in an effort to navigate through our lives. Yes, it is easier to use the dryer than hang up your clothes, but what about the energy usage? Yes, it is easier to drive than take public transport sometimes, but is it worth it? Does it fit unhypocritically into your value system? Maybe I should take the stairs instead of the elevator two flights... Obviously, some people just don't give a damn about these things, but the concept here worth getting across is that if we all lived our lives thinking that with every move, our peers – and in turn our own self worth – would be able to pass judgment on our adherence to our own principles and values; would we still compromise them? This is a good way to work on one's self. Would I do this if my friends were watching? My family? My colleague? The 'hot chick' at the coffee shop? The beautiful man you always see on bus?
Live your life to a higher standard. Yours.
I believe that we have to hold ourselves to a higher ideal. It becomes easy in life to bend our rules and principles in an effort to navigate through our lives. Yes, it is easier to use the dryer than hang up your clothes, but what about the energy usage? Yes, it is easier to drive than take public transport sometimes, but is it worth it? Does it fit unhypocritically into your value system? Maybe I should take the stairs instead of the elevator two flights... Obviously, some people just don't give a damn about these things, but the concept here worth getting across is that if we all lived our lives thinking that with every move, our peers – and in turn our own self worth – would be able to pass judgment on our adherence to our own principles and values; would we still compromise them? This is a good way to work on one's self. Would I do this if my friends were watching? My family? My colleague? The 'hot chick' at the coffee shop? The beautiful man you always see on bus?
Live your life to a higher standard. Yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)