why strangle little fireflies
that mourn with gladness in the night
why tear apart the moon that cries
for every little broken lie?
why sit beneath the strongest stone
while little children die alone
and faces of those once known
tear from the earth a broken bone?
can we? will we? will we? will we die?
i see the dance that's waved away
with dainty hands and wicked smiles
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers your feet
covers your lies
will we? shall we? shall we? shall we die?
why smile as flowers fade to ash
and words cut deep with every lash?
the walls we made of human flesh
are falling as the people laugh
i see the dance you wave away
with dainty hands and wicked smiles
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers your feet...
why dig a hole so cold and wet
with silvery threads the trap is set
why tangle feet in slimy nets?
we can't be that far gone yet...
can we? are we?
i see the dance that's waved away
while all the gods refuse to pray
hands folded over shallow graves
we live today, we die today
will we? will we die?
why strangle little fireflies?
the blood that you refuse to touch
covers up your lies
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
My Bare Naked Boobies
Why must us ladies cover our boobies?? This is something I've been wondering for a long time, because it seems like a great social injustice to me. Why are guys allowed to wander around topless while we have to cover up? It doesn't make any sense. My breasts serve a greater purpose than guy's. My breasts nourish my little baby. They have a function besides sex. Guy's boobies? They have no function other than sex! So why should we be the ones to cover up, especially when it's damned annoying trying to breastfeed when I'm not at least partially exposed.
Besides, many people breastfeed 2 year olds. If you can let a 2 year old see exposed boobies (and *gasp* suck on them!) why are they considered merely sexual for the rest of the population?
I think the idea stems from old chauvinistic tradition which states that guys can't control their sexual urges, so it's a woman's responsibility to "not tempt them" by concealing their god-given bodies. This idea is absurd, and denigrates not just women but men too. It implies that men have no self control, that they are unable to make the conscious choice NOT to rape women. And therefore women have the responsibility to control men's urges, because men themselves are unable to.
Um, sorry, this argument doesn't hold up in the face of logic. (Um, does it hold up at all??) A very small percentage of men would see a woman's naked body and rape her, but not because they *can't* control their body, but because they *won't*. Now some people would say, so what? If this saves a few women from getting raped, it's well worth it. But the men who would rape a woman after seeing her naked breasts would probably rape her anyway. If he doesn't see her breasts, then he will see her legs, or her neck, or her face, etc... and either way be turned on. If he can't handle being turned on, there really isn't anything anyone can do. Besides, a small percentage of people also get turned on by bare feet, or a pretty face, or fecal matter, or goats, or balloon animals, and the list goes on and on. (Not only that, but many men are also turned on by guy's nipples!) If we had to try and stamp out all sexual urges, we'd be so restricted that we couldn't breathe, and we would still fail in our purpose.
Not only that, but we *don't* try and stamp out men's sexual urges by covering our breasts! In fact we, as a society, often use it to tantalize them! Swimsuits are allowed if they cover up the nipples. The rest of the breasts can be bare. What? Since when are the nipples the "sexy" part of the breast? And if they are, then guys have them too! If we ban the sight of all nipples, we should at least be fair and ban them all. (Although I think that would also be rediculous.)
OK, enough ranting. I have to go expose my bare naked boobies to my 2 1/2 month old son, so that he can suck on them. (rolls eyes) How scandalous!
(This post is a suggestion by The Rambling Taoist to post something with a suggestive title and then not deliver, or deliver something else besides sex. Tee hee. Hence, this post.)
Besides, many people breastfeed 2 year olds. If you can let a 2 year old see exposed boobies (and *gasp* suck on them!) why are they considered merely sexual for the rest of the population?
I think the idea stems from old chauvinistic tradition which states that guys can't control their sexual urges, so it's a woman's responsibility to "not tempt them" by concealing their god-given bodies. This idea is absurd, and denigrates not just women but men too. It implies that men have no self control, that they are unable to make the conscious choice NOT to rape women. And therefore women have the responsibility to control men's urges, because men themselves are unable to.
Um, sorry, this argument doesn't hold up in the face of logic. (Um, does it hold up at all??) A very small percentage of men would see a woman's naked body and rape her, but not because they *can't* control their body, but because they *won't*. Now some people would say, so what? If this saves a few women from getting raped, it's well worth it. But the men who would rape a woman after seeing her naked breasts would probably rape her anyway. If he doesn't see her breasts, then he will see her legs, or her neck, or her face, etc... and either way be turned on. If he can't handle being turned on, there really isn't anything anyone can do. Besides, a small percentage of people also get turned on by bare feet, or a pretty face, or fecal matter, or goats, or balloon animals, and the list goes on and on. (Not only that, but many men are also turned on by guy's nipples!) If we had to try and stamp out all sexual urges, we'd be so restricted that we couldn't breathe, and we would still fail in our purpose.
Not only that, but we *don't* try and stamp out men's sexual urges by covering our breasts! In fact we, as a society, often use it to tantalize them! Swimsuits are allowed if they cover up the nipples. The rest of the breasts can be bare. What? Since when are the nipples the "sexy" part of the breast? And if they are, then guys have them too! If we ban the sight of all nipples, we should at least be fair and ban them all. (Although I think that would also be rediculous.)
OK, enough ranting. I have to go expose my bare naked boobies to my 2 1/2 month old son, so that he can suck on them. (rolls eyes) How scandalous!
(This post is a suggestion by The Rambling Taoist to post something with a suggestive title and then not deliver, or deliver something else besides sex. Tee hee. Hence, this post.)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Consciousness and Honesty
I have never met a truly honest person, a person who never, ever lies.
But then my definition of honesty is quite hard to attain.
I think it's important in life not only to refrain from lies told to other people, but also to refrain from lies told to yourself, or self deception.
Most people lie to themselves. They lie to themselves to make themselves feel better, to justify an action, to keep themselves from thinking something unpleasant, etc... and it's not always easy to tell if one is lying to oneself. It's fairly easy to know when you lie to another human. Occasionally a lie will just slip out of my mouth without my prior knowledge or consent and puzzle me greatly. Why did I tell that lie? What am I avoiding? Why can't I face the truth?
In the background of every lie there is cowardice and shame. If you are a truly brave person then the truth should not bother you, and therefore lies are never told. Lies are a cover up for some other problem in your life that you can't stand to face. The first step towards an honest life is to avoid telling lies to other people.
However, this goes hand in hand with desiring honesty within as well as without, and it's much harder to avoid lying to yourself then it is to avoid lying to another person! I don't believe that humans are fully conscious beings. We are conscious of some things, yes, but there are many, many things that remain locked in our unconscious state, that we are neither aware of nor able to control. Self deception is, for the most part, beyond our awareness, but it doesn't need to be. Some people speak and ask themselves, "is what I'm speaking true?" but few people think and ask themselves, "is what I'm thinking true?"
Most people take for granted the truthfulness of their thoughts, and yet humanity is full of rationalizations that are built as a mere convenience to the person, not based on truth at all but on desire. When we question the motives of our beliefs, it is called existentialism. I wish everyone would have an existential crisis, really look over everything they believe and ask themselves "why do I believe this? do i believe this merely to reassure myself? am i just taking the easy road in accepting this as true?" Many people's minds are due for a major housecleaning. This doesn't just apply to major beliefs but to minor ones as well. When your husband/wife/parents/children/friends ask you "why didn't you take care of this problem?" be honest with yourself and with them. Admit your difficulties, so that they can get resolved.
But then my definition of honesty is quite hard to attain.
I think it's important in life not only to refrain from lies told to other people, but also to refrain from lies told to yourself, or self deception.
Most people lie to themselves. They lie to themselves to make themselves feel better, to justify an action, to keep themselves from thinking something unpleasant, etc... and it's not always easy to tell if one is lying to oneself. It's fairly easy to know when you lie to another human. Occasionally a lie will just slip out of my mouth without my prior knowledge or consent and puzzle me greatly. Why did I tell that lie? What am I avoiding? Why can't I face the truth?
In the background of every lie there is cowardice and shame. If you are a truly brave person then the truth should not bother you, and therefore lies are never told. Lies are a cover up for some other problem in your life that you can't stand to face. The first step towards an honest life is to avoid telling lies to other people.
However, this goes hand in hand with desiring honesty within as well as without, and it's much harder to avoid lying to yourself then it is to avoid lying to another person! I don't believe that humans are fully conscious beings. We are conscious of some things, yes, but there are many, many things that remain locked in our unconscious state, that we are neither aware of nor able to control. Self deception is, for the most part, beyond our awareness, but it doesn't need to be. Some people speak and ask themselves, "is what I'm speaking true?" but few people think and ask themselves, "is what I'm thinking true?"
Most people take for granted the truthfulness of their thoughts, and yet humanity is full of rationalizations that are built as a mere convenience to the person, not based on truth at all but on desire. When we question the motives of our beliefs, it is called existentialism. I wish everyone would have an existential crisis, really look over everything they believe and ask themselves "why do I believe this? do i believe this merely to reassure myself? am i just taking the easy road in accepting this as true?" Many people's minds are due for a major housecleaning. This doesn't just apply to major beliefs but to minor ones as well. When your husband/wife/parents/children/friends ask you "why didn't you take care of this problem?" be honest with yourself and with them. Admit your difficulties, so that they can get resolved.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tolkien On Fairy Stories
I have just finished J.R.R. Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" which, amazingly, I have never read until now. :P (aaah! There are so many pieces of literature which I have never read! I need to get going...) Anyway, in that essay he criticizes a great many things, one of which is educated criticism of fairy tales. I agree with most of what he has to say, and I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who is extremely fascinated with literature and yet who finds it tedious to employ common literary "dissections" which are often employed by English professors.
Yes, I find it worthwhile to focus on a limited section and try to figure out what the author is trying to say, what hidden meanings are there, what common themes, etc... however, most literary criticism goes much further than needed, in attempt to strip the whole book down to its skeleton. (I find their skeletons, especially fiction, to be completely beside the point of the whole book.) Besides, most critics cannot dissect the work without a great deal of arrogance in surmising what the author's intentions are... perhaps the author didn't intend the color red to symbolize blood, or use a circling bird to forshadow doom... you never really know, and it's foolish to think that every writer had "literary studies" in mind when s/he wrote the book in the first place. Most "fairy stories" are like many paintings in that you get a clearer picture when viewed from a distance... observing the different brush strokes and hues of brown aren't going to tell you much about the actual painting and what it's trying to evoke.
Besides, it's the flesh of the story that I'm really interested in, the pieces that make it unique, not the pieces that are easily labeled. I thouroughly dislike "stock" characters... I feel it's a cop-out for those who don't want to put in the work of creating an actually interesting character. I dislike them when they're written that way (probably why I get bored of Commedia Del'Arte), and I dislike them even more when someone has dissected a perfectly complex character and turned him or her into a boring stick figure. :P
But then, I'm also a creature of Chaos- I dislike trying to sift out patterns and labels where they are not beneficial to my interest in the book. I enjoy Tolkien's work, and I applaud him for creating a world where war is explored (without the whole piece being a political allegory) and with meaningful philosophical and religious thought (without the whole piece being overly symbolic or religious).
That said, there are some things in his essay I disagree with, such as his assertion that fairy-stories should not be dramatized in plays (I think a play can successfully represent fantasy, IF it is done right) and other minor quibbles which I won't list. I don't worship the guy, but he does write some awe inspiring stuff. :)
Yes, I find it worthwhile to focus on a limited section and try to figure out what the author is trying to say, what hidden meanings are there, what common themes, etc... however, most literary criticism goes much further than needed, in attempt to strip the whole book down to its skeleton. (I find their skeletons, especially fiction, to be completely beside the point of the whole book.) Besides, most critics cannot dissect the work without a great deal of arrogance in surmising what the author's intentions are... perhaps the author didn't intend the color red to symbolize blood, or use a circling bird to forshadow doom... you never really know, and it's foolish to think that every writer had "literary studies" in mind when s/he wrote the book in the first place. Most "fairy stories" are like many paintings in that you get a clearer picture when viewed from a distance... observing the different brush strokes and hues of brown aren't going to tell you much about the actual painting and what it's trying to evoke.
Besides, it's the flesh of the story that I'm really interested in, the pieces that make it unique, not the pieces that are easily labeled. I thouroughly dislike "stock" characters... I feel it's a cop-out for those who don't want to put in the work of creating an actually interesting character. I dislike them when they're written that way (probably why I get bored of Commedia Del'Arte), and I dislike them even more when someone has dissected a perfectly complex character and turned him or her into a boring stick figure. :P
But then, I'm also a creature of Chaos- I dislike trying to sift out patterns and labels where they are not beneficial to my interest in the book. I enjoy Tolkien's work, and I applaud him for creating a world where war is explored (without the whole piece being a political allegory) and with meaningful philosophical and religious thought (without the whole piece being overly symbolic or religious).
That said, there are some things in his essay I disagree with, such as his assertion that fairy-stories should not be dramatized in plays (I think a play can successfully represent fantasy, IF it is done right) and other minor quibbles which I won't list. I don't worship the guy, but he does write some awe inspiring stuff. :)
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Being Grounded Vs. Interesting
It seems as if the more grounded and individual is, the less 'interesting' he/she is. After all, you can only talk about how nice and calm and contented you are for a short time. After that, you just end up talking about your wild cousin who crashed his motorcycle for the thousandth time and broke his arm... or about your adventurous friend who just moved to yet another foreign country and is learning how to skydive on her summer vacation... etc...
Also note how poets and artists, etc... tend to be less "settled" and more neurotic, quirky, and depressed. Personally, I tend to write and draw more when I'm angry, depressed, sad, or moody. Perhaps gloom motivates some people to be more "active" in life, to question and reflect on life. People who are contented and absorbed with day to day business don't tend to question or reflect, but simply accept their life.
There are disadvantages to being "grounded", such as failing to take new opportunities, thinking creatively and outside-the-box, and reaching above and beyond what you think are limitations. There are also disadvantages to being "interesting", such as discontent with life, mishaps and failures due to not thinking things through, and backing out of commitments when things get predictable.
And yet, finding a middle ground between the two proves to just be confusing. Perhaps some "grounded" people find ways to be interesting and bring out their personality, and "interesting" people find a few constants that make them happy. Perhaps it all boils down to finding what, in life, makes you happy. Maybe the confusing part is not that I try to find a middle ground, but that I don't really know what makes me happy in life, or when I do, I excessively question it.
For all my thinking, I might just as well be saying "blah blah blah"... :P
Also note how poets and artists, etc... tend to be less "settled" and more neurotic, quirky, and depressed. Personally, I tend to write and draw more when I'm angry, depressed, sad, or moody. Perhaps gloom motivates some people to be more "active" in life, to question and reflect on life. People who are contented and absorbed with day to day business don't tend to question or reflect, but simply accept their life.
There are disadvantages to being "grounded", such as failing to take new opportunities, thinking creatively and outside-the-box, and reaching above and beyond what you think are limitations. There are also disadvantages to being "interesting", such as discontent with life, mishaps and failures due to not thinking things through, and backing out of commitments when things get predictable.
And yet, finding a middle ground between the two proves to just be confusing. Perhaps some "grounded" people find ways to be interesting and bring out their personality, and "interesting" people find a few constants that make them happy. Perhaps it all boils down to finding what, in life, makes you happy. Maybe the confusing part is not that I try to find a middle ground, but that I don't really know what makes me happy in life, or when I do, I excessively question it.
For all my thinking, I might just as well be saying "blah blah blah"... :P
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Contentment
I find myself strangely content with my life, and harboring no resentment or anger towards even the assholes of the world. No resentment or anger towards even myself.
This is new.
Huh.
This is new.
Huh.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Guilt, and Nostalgia
Today I started exercising! For the first time in a while... I got out the wooden box and did some step-ups and 5 lb dumbbell exercises. Of course I listened to old hard rock CDs while I did my workouts, and realized how much I miss just being able to hit the workouts as hard as possible, look at my body in the mirror while I'm exercising, and not be disgusted at all the flab. I don't mind not being "sexy" at the moment... sure I miss being "sexy"... but right now what I miss is having actual muscle, agility, strength, endurance, energy... qualities I sorely missed while being pregnant and now I'm anxious to get them back! Again, right now all I want to do is get back into martial arts... to have the feeling that I'm preparing and strengthening my body for something that is essentially intense and worthwhile. I've never been able to motivate myself to exercise simply to "look good" or "feel good..." I need to TRAIN my body, not just burn calories... and maybe I will make my goal to be in shape enough to start martial arts again in a year or two, when my baby is old enough to be left with friends for a couple hours on a regular basis. I miss my "workout high" and I miss the social interaction, the intensity of the training, and the acquisition of badass skills.
I pretty much started my day by going out to milk the goats and feed animals, but when I got back inside I had a healthy (ha ha) helping of ice cream and chocolate chips, and sat around surfing the web and reading for a while... then T (my baby boy) fell asleep and I cuddled with him for a while, but couldn't drift off. This guilt kept nagging at me. I'm being lazy. I definitely didn't feel guilty for spending time with my boy... I felt guilty for sitting around on my ass.
Most people think of guilt as a bad thing. We are told we "shouldn't feel guilty" about this or that. And, usually, I don't. I find guilt to be a waste of my time, and usually don't bother with it. In fact, I believed it to be completely useless, (after all, if you are true to yourself and make choices you believe in, there's no use feeling guilty about it) until this morning, when I realized that guilt can actually be an effective motivator when it's healthy to do something that I have no wish to do. (Like exercise.) Is it possible that every human emotion or instinct or feeling has a purpose and can be beneficial? Or are there some feelings that are completely devoid of benefit altogether? I like the idea that every human emotion/instinct/feeling has a purpose, and it's the utilization of that purpose that makes the "feeling" beneficial or an obstacle... in other words, it's our choices, not our makeup, that determines what kind of benefit we get out of life. Still, there are some "feelings" that I can't see as having any real benefit, such as aversion to people different than oneself. It's a common human tendency to avoid "different" people and co-mingle (or think highly of) only people who are similar to oneself. However I can't think of a present-day situation when that tendency would be beneficial. (I.E. the upsides outweigh the downsides.)
This poses an interesting philosophical question that I will have to ponder in more detail before I formulate an opinion.
I pretty much started my day by going out to milk the goats and feed animals, but when I got back inside I had a healthy (ha ha) helping of ice cream and chocolate chips, and sat around surfing the web and reading for a while... then T (my baby boy) fell asleep and I cuddled with him for a while, but couldn't drift off. This guilt kept nagging at me. I'm being lazy. I definitely didn't feel guilty for spending time with my boy... I felt guilty for sitting around on my ass.
Most people think of guilt as a bad thing. We are told we "shouldn't feel guilty" about this or that. And, usually, I don't. I find guilt to be a waste of my time, and usually don't bother with it. In fact, I believed it to be completely useless, (after all, if you are true to yourself and make choices you believe in, there's no use feeling guilty about it) until this morning, when I realized that guilt can actually be an effective motivator when it's healthy to do something that I have no wish to do. (Like exercise.) Is it possible that every human emotion or instinct or feeling has a purpose and can be beneficial? Or are there some feelings that are completely devoid of benefit altogether? I like the idea that every human emotion/instinct/feeling has a purpose, and it's the utilization of that purpose that makes the "feeling" beneficial or an obstacle... in other words, it's our choices, not our makeup, that determines what kind of benefit we get out of life. Still, there are some "feelings" that I can't see as having any real benefit, such as aversion to people different than oneself. It's a common human tendency to avoid "different" people and co-mingle (or think highly of) only people who are similar to oneself. However I can't think of a present-day situation when that tendency would be beneficial. (I.E. the upsides outweigh the downsides.)
This poses an interesting philosophical question that I will have to ponder in more detail before I formulate an opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
