This will be a stream of consciouness on this topic. But I have been incubating this thought all day and I need to be rid of it :().
Blackberry, etal: 1) Do not be a worker ant and pull it out while one is walking across the street. It's what desperate worker ants do; 2) Do not pull it out when one is having a conversation. It's rude! and des classe; 3) Do not check it every 5 mins. (every half an hour OK), unless, one's livelihood depends on it like a thread. How sad.
Bathroom Break: Do not say, "I have to go pee." Just say, "Excuse me" and leave and come back.
Jokes: Never laugh at one's own joke(s). It's too self congratulatory and middle class.
Clothes: Always get them tailored. Tidy up.
Shoes: Never wear something that takes more than 5 mins. to break it in. In Summer, never wear flip flops unless one is on sand or near a body of water (preferablly, near the Meditteranean) and NEVER on concrete (OK: heels, flats, espadrilles, sandles). For the gentleman, shoe trees at home always, and never purchase a sole that is thicker than half an inch. One is driven, not walked.
Shirts: For gentlemen: Always collared and never a pocket. One does not take notes, others take notes.
Watches: Never quartz. It's cheating. Must always be Swiss crafted. Blancpain, Vacheron, Breugeut.
Date(s): Gentleman: Always pay the whole thing even when one knows that it's a loss from the beginning. Ladies: Gesture to pay.
Drinks: Ladies: Keep up with the gentleman. And if the gentleman, per chance, blacksout before you do (happened to me twice in 3 yrs.), discreetly, offer him another drink or narcotics.
Taxi: Gentleman always opens the door and never lets the lady walk more than 4 blocks.
Bring it on!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
One's Nature
Is it possible to change one's nature, and if so, how much of it? On one side of the argument, Nietzsche proclaims the philosophy of "becoming" i.e. one should and can always and continually try to improve upon one's flaws and shortcomings until one becomes an "ubermensche" (i.e. super man). Flaws and imperfections, he says is like a mountain that beckons to be climbed and conquered and he says that this can and must be done. On the other hand, Galen Strawson, a modern British philosopher posits that, basically, we are who we are and fundamentally, we can't really change who we are just as Hydrogen can not simply mutate into Carbon. In fact, Strawson extends his argument further and proclaims that there is no free will because, in effect, we do what we do based on who we are and that our actions are fated to be borne out of our nature. He further extends his argument by saying that once free will (personal choice) is expunged from life's equation, concepts like morality and ethics, in the absence of free will, no longer exists or applies to our actions.
For example, much to Strawson's chagrin, Hitler's behavior was not immoral or unethical. Since Hitler by nature (or natural proclivities), according to Strawson, was who he was. Others, with a more humane and compassionate proclivities can claim him to have been a monster. But to Hitler, he was not making any immoral decisions. Because he was acting out of his nature. This reminds me of the parable of the scorpion and the frog. One day, a scorpion wanted to cross the river to get to the otherside. A conviently placed frog offered to be a good samritan and take him to the otherside as long as he wasn't going to be stung. The scorpion gratefully accepted Mr. Frog's offer. But half way across the river, Mr. Frog felt a sharp pain, a sting! in his back and said, "why did you sting me? Now, we are both going to drown!" The scorpion replied, "I'm sorry! But it's my nature!"
Personally, I see truth in both positions. Per Nietzsche, I can see how one can change for the better, as long as the person wants/wills it and has the discipline to change. But I wonder how much of this is theoretical vs. practical? Strawson would argue that if a person, by nature, has the capacity, the will, and the discipline to change, by nature, they can. But if a person, by nature, is incapable of fundamental changes, the best that that person can do is to make adjustments since one can not mutate one's nature. For example, a constant procrastinator will most likely remain a constant procratinator. So, I see validity in both arguments; but with one exception... a catalyst.
I believe that behaviors, the symptom of one's nature, can be modified with guidance or by situation (most effectively, involuntarily). I can think of two examples from the top of my head: 1) a spendthrift person who has always been spendthrift (a carefree spender) may go through an excruciating time in their life where they lose their job, their house, their access to credit, etc. and after having gone through that hellish experience, decides to never have that happen again (re: Scarlet O'Hara: "As long I live, I will never go hungry again!" as she clenches Tara's soil), and once they are back on their feet, begin to moderate their spending, their view of life (e.g. realize that life is full of unexpected, good and bad surprises and rainy days), and begins to save and become, gladly, more mindful of their level and magnitude of consumption i.e. becomes a level headed person. 2) a libertine who has lived always with a devil may care attitude who squanders his or her life in the sole pursuit of pleasure, once diagnosed with a terminal disease, bedridden, and the priest on the way, who somehow escapes death and gets a new lease on life, will most likely and gladly, begin to appreciate the preciousness of life and would think twice before squandering his life away again in meaningless pursuits. Suddenly, he would want to hold onto life as long as he can. Eats healthier, exercises, tends to his relationships with friends and family, and looks forward, gladly, to a more meaningful, productive, and long life.
In conclusion, I think that the vast majority of people really can't change (some do of course (like those people who lose 10s of lbs. because they are fed up with being obese). But the exceptions do not make it a rule) either because they lack the will or the sustained discipline. But I also, unequivocablly, believe that people can change, dramatically and gladly, if their situation forces them to change. Net net, change is hard when it's voluntary. But it is easier, if it's involuntary. Albeit one may have to go through hell and back. Actually, perhaps, voluntary change is in the end, less painful?!
But this whole thing about. "Hey, it's America! You can be whatever you want to be. Just decide and work hard to get there with positive thinking, no excuses, and a bounce in your steps!" I buy it (the optimism, "yes, we can!") and simultaneously, I don't buy it (human nature is very difficult, I dare say, nearly impossible to overcome without a catalyst).
In the end, I admire people who can change for the better voluntarily. It's a hero's journey and it's what indeed does separate the wheat from the chaff.
Why not me?
For example, much to Strawson's chagrin, Hitler's behavior was not immoral or unethical. Since Hitler by nature (or natural proclivities), according to Strawson, was who he was. Others, with a more humane and compassionate proclivities can claim him to have been a monster. But to Hitler, he was not making any immoral decisions. Because he was acting out of his nature. This reminds me of the parable of the scorpion and the frog. One day, a scorpion wanted to cross the river to get to the otherside. A conviently placed frog offered to be a good samritan and take him to the otherside as long as he wasn't going to be stung. The scorpion gratefully accepted Mr. Frog's offer. But half way across the river, Mr. Frog felt a sharp pain, a sting! in his back and said, "why did you sting me? Now, we are both going to drown!" The scorpion replied, "I'm sorry! But it's my nature!"
Personally, I see truth in both positions. Per Nietzsche, I can see how one can change for the better, as long as the person wants/wills it and has the discipline to change. But I wonder how much of this is theoretical vs. practical? Strawson would argue that if a person, by nature, has the capacity, the will, and the discipline to change, by nature, they can. But if a person, by nature, is incapable of fundamental changes, the best that that person can do is to make adjustments since one can not mutate one's nature. For example, a constant procrastinator will most likely remain a constant procratinator. So, I see validity in both arguments; but with one exception... a catalyst.
I believe that behaviors, the symptom of one's nature, can be modified with guidance or by situation (most effectively, involuntarily). I can think of two examples from the top of my head: 1) a spendthrift person who has always been spendthrift (a carefree spender) may go through an excruciating time in their life where they lose their job, their house, their access to credit, etc. and after having gone through that hellish experience, decides to never have that happen again (re: Scarlet O'Hara: "As long I live, I will never go hungry again!" as she clenches Tara's soil), and once they are back on their feet, begin to moderate their spending, their view of life (e.g. realize that life is full of unexpected, good and bad surprises and rainy days), and begins to save and become, gladly, more mindful of their level and magnitude of consumption i.e. becomes a level headed person. 2) a libertine who has lived always with a devil may care attitude who squanders his or her life in the sole pursuit of pleasure, once diagnosed with a terminal disease, bedridden, and the priest on the way, who somehow escapes death and gets a new lease on life, will most likely and gladly, begin to appreciate the preciousness of life and would think twice before squandering his life away again in meaningless pursuits. Suddenly, he would want to hold onto life as long as he can. Eats healthier, exercises, tends to his relationships with friends and family, and looks forward, gladly, to a more meaningful, productive, and long life.
In conclusion, I think that the vast majority of people really can't change (some do of course (like those people who lose 10s of lbs. because they are fed up with being obese). But the exceptions do not make it a rule) either because they lack the will or the sustained discipline. But I also, unequivocablly, believe that people can change, dramatically and gladly, if their situation forces them to change. Net net, change is hard when it's voluntary. But it is easier, if it's involuntary. Albeit one may have to go through hell and back. Actually, perhaps, voluntary change is in the end, less painful?!
But this whole thing about. "Hey, it's America! You can be whatever you want to be. Just decide and work hard to get there with positive thinking, no excuses, and a bounce in your steps!" I buy it (the optimism, "yes, we can!") and simultaneously, I don't buy it (human nature is very difficult, I dare say, nearly impossible to overcome without a catalyst).
In the end, I admire people who can change for the better voluntarily. It's a hero's journey and it's what indeed does separate the wheat from the chaff.
Why not me?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
iPhone 2009
iKnow :) that I havent posted a blog in awhile. But that's probably because: 1) I havent really had anything I thought worth saying; 2) I've been spending more time on Facebook as an outlet; and 3) I go through phases from compulsive to abandonement.
Anyway, the iPhone. I think I'm going to get it when the new version comes out in June. The 3 main reasons that I didn't get it so far are: 1) Everyone has it and I hate jumping into something everyone has/does. It's sheepish; 2) I thought, at least to me, that it's bulky and slightly too heavy; and 3) I have been with Verizon for almost 15 years now and it's hard to sever that tie. It's one of the longest 'relationships' that I have had. Btw, I don't think that I own or have anything in my apt. that old.
BUT the more and more that I see some of my friends use the iPhone, the more I want it. The convenience of it all is winning me over. 1) Surfing the internet is as easy as surfing on a PC (bloggin from it will be just as easy too); 2) One can jump to Facebook and post things in seconds; 3) there are fantastic apps. like Shazaam (e.g. if one is at a bar or a lounge and wants to know what they're playing at the moment, one just clicks on the Shazaam app. and within a minute, the app. tells you what song it is and you can just download it from the iTunes store if one wants it. Instant gratification! It's so American in that way.) and there are games, guides (e.g. Zagat), tip calculator, etc. that are either free or at most $5.99.
I still like my phone with a qwerty keyboard since 95% of the time I text vs. actually talking and a physical qwerty is convenient. Nevertheless, the overall convenience of the iPhone seems to me now pressing and insurmountable.
So, when the new iPhone comes out in June, I am most likely going to get on the bandwagon. I can't wait!
Anyway, the iPhone. I think I'm going to get it when the new version comes out in June. The 3 main reasons that I didn't get it so far are: 1) Everyone has it and I hate jumping into something everyone has/does. It's sheepish; 2) I thought, at least to me, that it's bulky and slightly too heavy; and 3) I have been with Verizon for almost 15 years now and it's hard to sever that tie. It's one of the longest 'relationships' that I have had. Btw, I don't think that I own or have anything in my apt. that old.
BUT the more and more that I see some of my friends use the iPhone, the more I want it. The convenience of it all is winning me over. 1) Surfing the internet is as easy as surfing on a PC (bloggin from it will be just as easy too); 2) One can jump to Facebook and post things in seconds; 3) there are fantastic apps. like Shazaam (e.g. if one is at a bar or a lounge and wants to know what they're playing at the moment, one just clicks on the Shazaam app. and within a minute, the app. tells you what song it is and you can just download it from the iTunes store if one wants it. Instant gratification! It's so American in that way.) and there are games, guides (e.g. Zagat), tip calculator, etc. that are either free or at most $5.99.
I still like my phone with a qwerty keyboard since 95% of the time I text vs. actually talking and a physical qwerty is convenient. Nevertheless, the overall convenience of the iPhone seems to me now pressing and insurmountable.
So, when the new iPhone comes out in June, I am most likely going to get on the bandwagon. I can't wait!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
On Gay Marriage
First off, let me say that I am a 'straight' guy. But I am all for gay marriage. I didn't always think this way. In fact, up to a couple of years ago, my thinking was that same sex unions should only be called civil unions with all the rights of a marriage. But without granting the word 'marriage.' The word 'marriage' I concluded then has a sacred connotation, and thus, the institution of marriage with the sacrement of the church should only apply to a hetrosexual union on the basis of religious tradition which has lasted for close to 2,000 years.
But then I thought: 1) nowhere in the Bible does it say that people of the same sex can not be married; 2) the Bible, which is supposedly inspired by God, was nevertheless, written by men, who are by nature flawed and subjective and there's also the histrocity aspect of the Bible, that is, what they wrote depended alot on the times in which they wrote and the prevailing mores of those times just as slavery was the norm in Roman times and the same in America in the 17th and 18th century; 3) the Bill of Rights, clearly states that we have inalienable rights among which are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The ban on gay marriage violates the latter two rights.
So, I reversed my opinion on the entire matter. All people: gay, straight, handicapped, ethinicities, etc. are all human, and therefore, the inalienable rights apply to all.
I still believe that marriage is sacred. It is a solemn oath and duty once the bond/the covenant is made. But I don't believe that the principles and the sentiments of and for the sacred comes from the Church alone. In fact, the Church, in many ways is a flawed institution, not all but many. People interpret the Bible as they deem right. Thus, we have the diaspora of denominations and offsprouts within the denominations. Why should their interpretation of the Bible trump any other human interpretation of morality.
People should rise above religion and instead behave compassionately, empathetically, sympathetically, rationally, and spiritually.
Kepler, Corpernicus, and Galilleo were all excommunicated by the Church because they observed and said that the earth rotates around the sun vs. the other way around. The Church, based on one verse from the Book of Joshua stoodfast to the view that the sun rotated around the Earth and thus any other view was considered heresy. Then in the 20th century, the Church apologized for its error.
The one and only thing I like about the Bible is the love that Jesus extended to all people (except for the hypocrites like the Pharisses and the Seducces whose egos eclipsed compassion).
So, cheers! to Iowa and Vermont for choosing love and reason over hate and dogma.
But then I thought: 1) nowhere in the Bible does it say that people of the same sex can not be married; 2) the Bible, which is supposedly inspired by God, was nevertheless, written by men, who are by nature flawed and subjective and there's also the histrocity aspect of the Bible, that is, what they wrote depended alot on the times in which they wrote and the prevailing mores of those times just as slavery was the norm in Roman times and the same in America in the 17th and 18th century; 3) the Bill of Rights, clearly states that we have inalienable rights among which are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The ban on gay marriage violates the latter two rights.
So, I reversed my opinion on the entire matter. All people: gay, straight, handicapped, ethinicities, etc. are all human, and therefore, the inalienable rights apply to all.
I still believe that marriage is sacred. It is a solemn oath and duty once the bond/the covenant is made. But I don't believe that the principles and the sentiments of and for the sacred comes from the Church alone. In fact, the Church, in many ways is a flawed institution, not all but many. People interpret the Bible as they deem right. Thus, we have the diaspora of denominations and offsprouts within the denominations. Why should their interpretation of the Bible trump any other human interpretation of morality.
People should rise above religion and instead behave compassionately, empathetically, sympathetically, rationally, and spiritually.
Kepler, Corpernicus, and Galilleo were all excommunicated by the Church because they observed and said that the earth rotates around the sun vs. the other way around. The Church, based on one verse from the Book of Joshua stoodfast to the view that the sun rotated around the Earth and thus any other view was considered heresy. Then in the 20th century, the Church apologized for its error.
The one and only thing I like about the Bible is the love that Jesus extended to all people (except for the hypocrites like the Pharisses and the Seducces whose egos eclipsed compassion).
So, cheers! to Iowa and Vermont for choosing love and reason over hate and dogma.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ode To Manhattan
As much as I complain and bitch about Manhattan and how many low lives that I find here at any moment, I must forfeit my complaints from time to time.
It is true that I am sure that 98% of the people that I see and have encountered here are peasants with accompanying low forehead and flip flops and all, I don't think that there is another city on this planet, that in absolute terms (#s), that has as many interesting and diverse group of people.
Other than S.F., New Orleans, Chicago, London, Paris, Honolulu, Sydney, Barcelona, Montreal, Monte Carlo, and Hong Kong, I can't imagine living anywhere else. Nowhere else (I would think) has the same level of energy, diversity, and modernity.
In Manhattan, there is nothing that one can not have. Food, shopping, clubs, lounges, hotels, people, culture, and possibilties.
It's true that if one does enough of it, it does become a routine and routines can become boring. But we Manhattanites have the choice to not participate amidst all of the choices at any given day and night. What other cities (besides the aforementioned) can one say this about? Manhattan ranks on top.
S.F. would be the closest to this. Plus it has the better weather and better access to nature. Kudos to S.F. But may the gods bless Manhattan. My Salome; my sweet toxic love.
It is true that I am sure that 98% of the people that I see and have encountered here are peasants with accompanying low forehead and flip flops and all, I don't think that there is another city on this planet, that in absolute terms (#s), that has as many interesting and diverse group of people.
Other than S.F., New Orleans, Chicago, London, Paris, Honolulu, Sydney, Barcelona, Montreal, Monte Carlo, and Hong Kong, I can't imagine living anywhere else. Nowhere else (I would think) has the same level of energy, diversity, and modernity.
In Manhattan, there is nothing that one can not have. Food, shopping, clubs, lounges, hotels, people, culture, and possibilties.
It's true that if one does enough of it, it does become a routine and routines can become boring. But we Manhattanites have the choice to not participate amidst all of the choices at any given day and night. What other cities (besides the aforementioned) can one say this about? Manhattan ranks on top.
S.F. would be the closest to this. Plus it has the better weather and better access to nature. Kudos to S.F. But may the gods bless Manhattan. My Salome; my sweet toxic love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
