A Pixelated Mind » the philosophy of the everyday

Why why isn’t interesting

Pixel — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:31:19 +0000

I recently did a post on mysteries. It wasn’t very in depth, really it was just me asking everybody what their favorite mystery was. I worried when I wrote the post that somebody was going to ask ‘the big question’ of ‘why are we here?’ And sure enough, someone did:

why we exist, D-U-H…..

xoxo

The reason I worried about it was because it seemed like a waste of a question to me. Perhaps it doesn’t seem that way to you, but then that’s why you come here: to disagree at first, laugh once, then slowly come about to my way of thinking.

Let’s get the laugh out of the way first:

I ran out of underwear today, so I fashioned a loincloth out of socks instead.

The reason ‘why we exist’ doesn’t seem like an interesting question to me is because I don’t expect any answer. I mean, I expect an answer, I just don’t expect I’m going to like it. In fact, no matter what the answer is, I suspect not everyone will like it. For instance:

Answer 1: There is no purpose to us being here, we just are

Who it pleases: Biologists, naturalists, nihilists, some atheists.

Who it displeases: Everyone else who feels we’re too special and we could only exist if some being or force deemed us necessary.

Answer 2: We’re here to do X (where X is non-religious, as in ‘to create plastic’)

Who it pleases: Nobody, because rather than level the playing field as in answer 1, it deems us worth less than plastic. In philosophical terms, it treats us as means, as only instrumentally valuable, rather than intrinsically valuable.

Who it displeases: Everyone. If we’re purely instrumentally valuable, then why give us consciousness at all? Why not just have automatons (like politicians) do our part and be done with the whole thing?

Answer 3: We’re to do X (where X is explicitly religious, as in ‘to serve Allah’)

Who it pleases: The one sect that happens to be right (the Amish).

Who it displeases: Everyone, once they realize that they want an answer more profound than being cosmic fanbots. What’s worse, if there is an answer beyond being purely useful to worship someone, it threatens to collapse into answer 2 (i.e. if we were a hyper-dimensional science fair project).

Answer 4: We’re here because we’re worthwhile intrinsically (we’re just here to exist)

Who it pleases: Buddhists, pantheists, some others

Who it displeases: People that think existence isn’t a worthwhile goal or purpose for us. People that want ‘something more.’

In conclusion, no answer to the big why can satisfy most of us. I argue that this is the reason we’re still looking.

What’s a little labeling to you?

Pixel — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:06:05 +0000

There are two types of labels that people use to describe themselves: accidental and essential properties (footnote to Aristotle*). I find these fascinating as I peruse ‘about me’ profiles throughout the Internet.

The perceived essential properties always jump out at me, because these are the things that people think are really important about them. I am composed of nothing but accidental properties. So I’m intrigued when I see people define themselves by something at all, let alone so easily.

I’ll give an example:

Mary meets Chris. Mary says, “hi, I’m Mary. I’m a ballet dancer.”

Compare this to:

Christ meets Mary. Chris says, “hey, I’m Chris. I suppose I, too, am a ballet dancer.”

The difference is in both the tone and the content. In the first example, Mary believes that– in order to know who she is as a person– you have to be aware of what ballet dancers are like. In the second example, though Chris is also a ballet dancer, he sees this as something that is non-essential to him as a person. In other words Mary is a ballet dancer, Chris does ballet dancing.

People like Chris attach labels to themselves because they’re so used to labels being bandied about that they immediately resort to labeling themselves as well to facilitate communication. These people are never truly comfortable with them and sometimes even rebel at the idea.

People like Mary wear their labels with pride and perceive the world through those labels. They usually perceive the label as something bigger than them that they can be a part of. They also seek out a community of like-minded people with whom they can speak. If these labels are ever stripped away, they have an existential crisis. For example, if Mary was proud to be Irish and later found out that she was actually Scottish, it might affect her pride at her Irish flag tattoo (it’s on her buttocks).

Now, there’s nothing wrong with labels, per se, they’re just things to watch out for. It’s always dangerous when you begin to identify yourself by something that is outside of your control. Not just because it breaks you down into your component parts, uses, talents, positions and beliefs, but also because it inevitably leads to a flawed assessment of your self worth and place in the world.

Just two cents from a guy who happens to write a blog…

*ref: Plato

What’s a little questioning between friends?

Pixel — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:06:18 +0000

This post continues an idea from yesterday’s post.

When I was a kid I was always bad at Truth or Dare. It wasn’t because I didn’t want to share things about myself and it wasn’t because I was afraid of doing silly/stupid/dangerous/embarrassing things. No, I was bad at Truth or Dare because I never wanted to ask anybody any questions or ask them to do any dares. It took me a long time to figure out why I was afraid of this aspect. The answer jumped out at me one year in high school.

I was on the phone with one of my lady friends when she paused for a moment and said,

“have you ever done [insert thing I've never done here*]?”

I, being an ignorant 15 year old, immediately answered “no!” I also said “I think that’s illegal in this state, and I hear the United Nations Human Rights Council† is considering making that a crime against humanity.”

Her response was a quiet,

“oh.”

See, what I didn’t get back then was why she was asking the question. She was asking the question because she was thinking about it. She was thinking about it because it was important to her. It was important to her because her boyfriend had just convinced her to do that.

Had I been a smarter 17 year old, I would have gotten that and been able to go on with the conversation, addressing her fears rather than having her address them later with a revolver.‡ This is not to mention that I would have figured out more about her from her question than was possible from my answer.

In this way, I realize that questions are more revealing than answers. Because with questions, as with labels, you reveal what you think is important. It’s the reason I replaced all of my small talk with existential questions… which, coincidentally, is the reason I do very little small talk.

For more on this topic, read the Little Prince.

* No joke is intended by this punch line.
† I know that back then it was called the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, but I didn’t want to lose the modern day audience reading this that would have been taken out of the story by the seeming anachronism
‡ I’m kidding. It’s just a metaphor. She actually used a Walther P99 semiautomatic pistol.

What’s a little labeling between enemies?

Pixel — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:09:17 +0000

I have an avid interest in labels. I find it interesting to see what words people choose to call each other. I think it defines the person saying it more than the person they’re saying it about.

For instance, a ‘friend’ of mine recently called a girl he knows a ‘ho.’ If you didn’t know this girl, you wouldn’t be justified in concluding she was a ‘ho.’ In fact, this comment would only tell you one thing: my ‘friend’ deemed it appropriate to call her a ‘ho.’

From this piece of evidence all of these conclusions are equally supported:

This friend has Tourette’s, or some other ailment in which he uses inappropriate words.
He wants you to believe she’s a ho or that he believes she’s a ‘ho.’
She really is a ho and he thinks it’s a defining characteristic of hers.
He thinks not being a ‘ho’ is important enough to warrant a comment when someone breaks this norm.

Personally, I think the final conclusion is most often the correct one. At least, that’s what I’m afraid of. In all the conclusions, one could arguably say that you can find out more about the person making the comment than the person the comment is about. That’s one of the reasons I avoid making comments about people or describing people. I worry that some other hyper-analytical person will get more out of what I’m saying than I mean him to.

What labels do you use? And what do they say about you? Do you know? Do you have the courage to find out?

Things that you can be geeky about without being a geekº

Pixel — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:29:59 +0000

‘Manly’ sports
Wine
Art
Drugs¹
History
Sex
The Simpsons²

Things that people think belong on the first list, but are still pretty lame

Indie/emo/metal/rap music
Anything to do with technology
Pornography
All other sports
Cars
Politics
Religion
Cartoons
Movies
Your particular field of interest

ºGeeky is hereby defined as knowing more than a common connoisseur would know about, esp. anything behind the scenes such as which musicians came from which bands and what is coming up in the particular industry.

¹Okay, okay, you can be something about drugs and art, but it’s not geeky… it’s just sad. Essentially, knowing too much of anything will be viewed as odd for anyone who doesn’t know it.

²Just kidding. You’re a geek.

Jamal Tucker Must Die

Pixel — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:15:45 +0000

Do I know myself? Well, yeah. I mean, I’d recognize myself if I saw me in a line up.

- That’s just me talking to myself

I think I know why the minority always dies in movies. It’s not hidden or overt racism on anybody’s part. It’s not a coincidence, either. Instead, it’s a combination of two interacting forces and one failure of imagination.

Force #1: There are multiple characters and it’s more believable to have some diversity in the characters. Hence, the creation of a minority character.
Force #2: Someone has to die to show how serious of a movie this is. Hence, bye to the minority.
Failure of Imagination: The writer/director/producer is not a minority. As he’s not a minority, he finds it hard to identify with the minority character. Thus, the minority character is not only not going to be a main character, but he’ll be the first to go if someone has to be killed off.

I’m glad I could clear that up for people.