Embrace the Pain January 12, 2008Posted by extradocument in Self Destruction, Way of Life.
Tags: pain, Philosophy, Self Destruction, self improvement, Way of Life
1 comment so far
Pain is something that we all experience, and is often seen as that negative side effect of an experience. We fall, and when the blood starts to ooze from our wound we immediately feel pain. You spent time in a relationship, and it ended poorly; what was there right at the very end? Pain. These experiences are shoved away and shunned because we don’t want to feel that pain. Pain is a detractor, it prohibits us from doing other actions and observing what is going on around us. Pain, it seems, can have no benefits.
There are two ways to deal with your pain; you can ignore it, or you can embrace it. There are many new methods of ignoring your pain; we have multibillion dollar industries thirsting for your pain and feeding off our pathetic attempts to deal with bad situations. Counselors are paid to listen, and tell you to get over it. There are greedy drug companies selling us narcotics to mask the pain from our body, and give our brains something else to think about. Some even have groups of people who get together and share what they feel, festering groups of shammed “victims” trying to escape their own pain by passing it on to another. Pain is inevitable, if you want to be treated fair, if you want to be out of pain the fastest method is to end it at the source, kill yourself. Each body is the same; a useless heap of decaying flesh means nothing to anybody, the person you cared for is not there, they are not the same. However this method of dealing with pain is for the sick and cowardly, when you face a problem, stand and face it like you should; anything less should result in a suspension of your right to survive.
Now notice another thing: something that always accompanies pain, a lesson. No matter how much pain you receive there is knowledge to be gained, and those who ignore a chance to gain, and instead wallow in self-pity need to chose a new life. In each moment of pain you are suppressing your chance to bask in the euphoria of knowing you have done something, a feeling a pride, not fear. When you feel pain you know you are alive, you know that you can still learn, still fight. ‘To what end would we fight’, you may ask, ‘For that little bit of extra knowledge.’ When you fell and scraped your knee, if you could only see past the pain, there is something there, something to be seen. The way your skin opened up, and the red ooze gently seeped to the surface of your skin, before finally manifesting in a bright drop of crimson life. When you lost that one you had cared for, did you notice you know can see something like this again? The next time that someone comes along, you can take measures to do more, you can prevent the situation from happening again. Whenever there is pain there is a learning experience, meet the pain head on, then refuse to be beaten, take your stance and breakthrough, you need not to worry of getting hurt when you know the only thing that hurts is pain itself.
Pain is also like a drug, to be taken in small amounts, rarely, decreases the sting each new welt will leave. If, when you got that previous burn, you had milked the festering wound for more pain, then perhaps there could be benefits. When you take too much a drug, you need more to stay high, the same principal applies with pain. Relative to the first experience with any pain, after each successive “enlightenment” you gain a passage, or numbness from the pain; do this enough and you soon will not need to even think about it. By applying large amounts of controlled pain, by yourself at brief time periods you can keep this shield up, allowing minimal things to pass without notice, and allowing larger things to cut with a more dull blade. This self induced pain can be thought of akin to ripping off a scab, no matter how many times you rip it off, it will heal eventually, and the pain also dies off. The first few times your blood is exposed to the air , you may give up hope; if you remember the benefits of inducing pain, you can always get through. Confronting the pain on your own terms lets you have the upper hand, when you only feel pain when you decide it, no pain is ever that difficult to bear.
By confronting this pain you will soon learn to realize that there never was any real pain. This may seem ironic but it’s true; after a point your brain will realize that pain is a useless response, and continue with other things, such as analyzing the moment. When you have eliminated, not ignored, this feeling, you are that much more free in your world, and will have a greater understanding. With that knowledge you know you have done better than many common people before you, and that your life is worth using for a purpose, not as a reactant to the stimuli around you.
I support our troops; what choice do I have? November 26, 2007Posted by extradocument in Propaganda.
Tags: America, conspiracy, gulf war, progaganda, support our troops
Imagine this, your best friend, the one you’ve known forever, walked up to you and asked, “Do you support the troops in Iraq?” Now, you have two different options, you can say, “Yes, I do.” or, you can say “No, I don’t.” Seems rather simple? So which would you reply?
Lets look again at this question, just for giggles. The phrase “Support our troops” is one that is practically part of our lives now; you can see bumper stickers on cars, or banners in the city, all sporting this simple saying, symbolic of all that we stand for. It’s chanted by nationalists, and held as a marker for your place in society, if you support our troops, you’re definitely a true American. This mantra of all things good stands for pride in one’s country, love of peace and the protection of our sacred democracy, through democracy our rights, and of course through rights, the government that supports us in our daily doings.
Ever notice how it works like that? Agreeing to “support our troops” is like an unspoken oath that puts your motives in line with those of America, and more importantly, it’s government; but what if you don’t agree with all of America’s motives? Can you go out and say, “No, I don’t support our troops”? you might imagine the responses you’d get. Nobody can go out and “disagree” with Nationalism, nobody can go out and say, no to the protection of Democracy, if you were to do that then you must be a communist, or worse yet; one of those folks from Al-Qaeda, a terrorist! There is no way you can “Not support our troops”, even the people against our war on terror aren’t willing to say they don’t support our troops. These nay-sayers, the people who oppose our current president, and the war end up making meager excuses such as this; “Well, I’m against the war, but I guess I do support the troops…” There is no way on earth to not be forced in to this logic, and it’s become about as redundant as, in the words of Noam Chomsky, “…if somebody asks you, Do you support the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don’t support them? It’s not even a question. It doesn’t mean anything.” (Noam Chomsky Media Control 25) So what are the motives behind this little phrase of ours? Well, heres where it started.
Operation Desert Storm, or the Gulf war was one of the first wars that the average citizen could experience. With new news networks such as CNN having charismatic news anchors
talk about things like war, and violence, there was a need for your attention to be drawn away from the negative. Many horrible things would be broadcast through your T.V. set, missiles lighting the sky as they streak screaming at their target’s, bullets eating through buildings, and sinking their teeth in to young men, young men ready to give anything for their belief in a better world, and for your protection. These were young people, facing what was now realized by the public as a very very bad thing!
It was this point that the government knew what they had to do. Smart people that they are, they jumped and started using the slogan “Support our troops” to boost morale, and let people focus on something other than the negative; if people care so much about the soldiers, they’ll be fine! Soon nobody wants to be the odd one out, and we get tonnes of folks practically willing to die for this notion of supporting our troops, a successful diversion created by our government.
Now, I don’t want to go all “loose-change” on you, and I appreciate a conspiracy as much as the next person, but really; why would we need a phrase like this? It’s a phrase that embodies a set of ideals, and those are used to keep the masses of the public, us, at home occupied in our mindset that we’re making a difference, while all the big guns on capitol hill make the “real decisions”. If we aren’t looking as to why we’ve just invaded a foreign country, but instead worrying about the people who are doing our dirty work, then the elitists have won, and the propaganda is a success! Everybody is happy, the politicians can go back to their work, and we all feel good about ourselves for worrying.
As a final note, I do support the people on our front lines fighting, it’s brave of them to drop their lives and go place themselves in danger, but what if we can get them out of danger? What if we can throw away the “necessary illusions” that have been pulled in front of our eyes? Then we can finally get to work ending this conflict, and going back to contributing in a meaningful way to society, as opposed to shouting “nationalistic mantras” and not really looking to see whats going on a little farther ahead.
A Quick Question November 25, 2007Posted by extradocument in Philosophy.
Tags: 6th sense, awareness, Descartes, Philosophy, random
Recently, I’ve been in a war with myself, and some of those around me; not a physical war, but you could consider it a spiritual one. This war doesn’t exist outside the bounds of it’s battles, there is no downtime, because if there isn’t a battle, the war doesn’t exist. This war is one of our existence.
Now, it’s not fighting for our existence against some other-worldly being, but it’s a war to prove our existence, and it’s funneled around some questions that can make you think.
1. If you were born without senses (i.e. touch, smell, sight, taste, and hearing) then how would you find the grounds to prove you exist?
Seems like a simple enough question, you could use the classic statement by Rene Descartes; “I think, therefore I am.” which was used as his grounds of his existence, to which he moved on to solve this and that and become the “father of modern philosophy”.
Descartes’ premise for this search for a proof of existence began with his belief that the senses lied to you, and therefore could not be trusted. This works well with a person who has no senses, because it leaves no way for them to lie to you, it also however gives their non-existence new meaning, perhaps them not-lying to you is itself an oxymoron, and is a lie of it’s own.
Next we come to Descartes’ firm belief that he does indeed “think”. Now, of the people I have asked, and most likely of you too, everybody thinks in a language, generally their primary language of use, for example, as an English speaker, when I think to myself, I think in English, whereas a fried who speaks Chinese in his personal life is inclined to think mostly in Mandarin. This leaves way to wondering if it is possible to think, if you have gained no language skills. That is to say, since language depends on the experiences of your life, especially the auditory components, if you never experienced anything (through lack of senses from birth) can you think? And through connection, can you justify an existence?
My next all-seeing question, comes from the first and is as follows:
2. If you were to lose your senses after having established them previously (through age) how would you now justify your existence?
Most commonly, the justification I get for this would be “you don’t” a wholly pittyful excuse for avoiding the question, and avoiding my incessant moaning about life. I do, however, feel a need that this is answered, for if you can’t experience anything, what justifies your purpose, and existence? Descartes’ basis of “I think therefore I am” now fits in quite well so this part of my question is very closely linked to answering the first, and when considered by itself, seems wholly useless. Nonetheless, it’s useful to bring up the assumption that after a prolonged period of time, we still experience thought. If for instance, there is no need for something, we can forget of it, take a physical trait for example, tails. According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and the removal of uneeded “wind-dings” our bodies created but no longer have a use for, our tails eventually were dismissed; as a species, there was no longer a need, so we could do without them. The same may fit along with though, if you have no experiences, or reason to think, then who is to say that thought is needed? And, if you give up on the need for thought, and stop thinking all together, then by Descartes’ reasoning, you may not exist, for you are missing a vital part of his thesis.
Lastly my questions end with a final one, that again follows:
3. If our senses can be removed, or deceive us, and that a single senses can’t be wholly experienced with the other senses we are capable of, how do we know if we have lost a sense that has never been acquired in the first place?
That is to say, if you never had a sense of sight, how would you know you don’t have it? People could tell you about it yes, or you might perceive another person’s reaction, but that still won’t give you full sense of knowing you lost a sense. To give an example, someone who dosen’t like tacos, could be told that they “don’t know what they’re missing” but could that be perceived as you not having a 6th sense that is solely used to experience tacos? Most likely not, and this does a fairly sound job of giving an example about “incomplete perception” as I have called it.
Hopefully, one day, I can stop troubling myself and get to think of something else, like whether or not it’s really worth it to eat taco’s, but for now, I can continue to ask myself the question of whether or not we can ever justify our existence.
Namesake of a New Blog November 25, 2007Posted by extradocument in Uncategorized.
Tags: , Argument, DBQ, First, History, Student
Yeah, I know it’s another new blog, why care about this one, there are thousands of blogs made each day!
To answer that, I’ll tell you about a class I’ve taken, AP World History. When it’s required write a Document Based Question, (an essay that requires the writer to interpret a set of primary documents, also known as a DBQ), it is imperative to always ask for an extra document to help strengthen an argument you make. When a set of documents given to you are all from a common source, such as members of the government, then your essay will not take in to account a complete view of your given topic. For example I used to following to ask for an extra document on a DBQ asking to compare the view of technology in Han China and Ancient Rome.
“Each of these documents were written by a court or district official, and it would be helpful to have a document from either an artisan, talking about what necessitated the need for a new technology, or from a laborer, describing how the a technology has benefited their work.”
This is just one example, but it order for any argument to be properly justified, you must have the view of another person incorporated; if you do not account for everybody your argument is very likely flawed.
Thats where I come in, amidst a sea of other blogs, I hope to insert my humble opinion, and serve as that Extra Document. The thing about these Documents is that they’re often just not there, it’s not so common is history to find a literate peasant in the 13th century, one who can write and also uses that skill to talk about things such as the one that historians want. As a student, and one that doesn’t like to follow with all the other “main stream culture”, that kids often are pressured in to at a students age, I can provide that Extra Document, the one that you need to fulfill your argument for life; for without the view of every person incorporated, your argument, and thus your perception, is very often flawed.