I've gone to church most Sundays in my life. According to my mother and father, I was a well behaved little flirt of a baby. I never cried much or made noise, but I was plenty distracting to the middle-aged envious women of the congregation. I was not annoying for the most part and people distracted themselves from mass to talk to me. Most babies are not like me. Most parents are not like mine in mass. People need to control their babies in church or stop bringing them.
When I outgrew my cuteness and demanded stimulation that couldn't be found in the attention of baby-snatchers (my mother has become one- a woman who loves babies and wants to hold every one she sees), I succumbed to the power of the coloring book. My parents knew me well enough to see that I was going to be a problem on Sundays if I didn't have something to do. Seeing as how the complexities of Catholicism were beyond my mental range, they brought coloring books. I was an aspiring comic book artist (my talent for drawing tapered off after age 6) and coloring engrossed me. In mass these days, I see an astounding lack of coloring books. People are afraid that a coloring book is disrespectful of the institution. They assume the sight of a child coloring a dove purple and green would be too distracting to prayer, so instead they allow their rambunctious little cherubs to scream at no end. These children are not filled with the spirit of the Lord, they are simply bored by Him. Parents pick up their children and stare at the priest, trying to comfort the child and still Receive the Word. What they fail to realize is that when they pick up their screeching spawn the people in the pew behind them are now faced with a temptation of mortal stature. The only way to really get anything out of going to church is to devote one's whole mind to the Word. I can only get at the lessons of the Bible when I am clear mentally. For every screaming baby, one prayer is wasted hoping that the baby will stop crying. It will not, all ye faithful.
I cherish the sight of a well-behaved baby in mass so much that it is more distracting than the screamers. This is only the case because of the screamers themselves, but it has created a lose-lose situation. The only solution for this problem is to either occupy the baby with an activity, understanding that the net total of disrespect is lower for the distracted and silent child, or to take the baby out into the front of the church until it calms down. As a parent, your first responsibility is your child. If the child is screaming you need to calm it down, but that process takes a long time more often than not. The good people of the church have gathered to hear God's message and that becomes impossible when a parent is trying too hard to multitask. Take your baby outside and calm it down. Give it a pacifier and take it back inside.
A few weeks ago, I saw a man give his kids his iphone to play with. He had a silly little game that had the kids tapping the screen when an animal came up or something to that effect. The previously ill-behaved kids shut right up and everyone in the family's minds all went back to where they should be. I'd prefer it to be a coloring book because of the artistic seed that can be planted by that route, but either way the child needs something and Jesus isn't doing it for them.
Bear in mind that I never sit in the back of church. The last time I did, my mother and I vowed that we never would again, dubbing it Pee-Wee's playhouse. At some points it became impossible to hear our priest speaking. We were unsure whether we should be standing or kneeling as the kids around us were doing both, as well as standing on the pews, running in the aisles until their irate parents shepherded them back to their places, and (my favorite) climbing over pews. They fell over into the pew in front of them and looked back for acknowledgment from their parents who had decided to ignore them. Of course this neglect prompts further displays of athletic prowess. This exemplifies the problem. Parents don't want to think about their kids during mass, but they don't know how to make it so they don't have to.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Is Poverty A Choice?
I've never known poverty in my life and I likely never will. I don't come from poverty for at least two generations and am blessed with education and enough money to live comfortably. Any view of poverty from an outside perspective will be skewed by a primitive understanding of that world. Reading "All Souls" is confirming the ideas of existentialism that we read about early in the year. What happens to an individual is a result of choices made by either the individual or factors around the individual dependent on choices made by other people. Poverty is always a result of choices made by someone. There appears to be a common misconception in the minds of the well-off and the impoverished alike, that poverty can just happen to someone as if caused by some great universal force. No one can make blanket statements about poverty as it is in one generation, one lifetime. Poverty, when it happens, can come from factors outside of the individual's control. As an illustrative example: a mother has multiple kids with a man who had a steady enough job to support the kids. The man leaves because he didn't want to be a father and realized he didn't want to support the family anymore. The mother now has to support the kids on her own, but she loses her job because the company she worked for is going out of business. She then goes looking for a job that can support her kids, but she can't find any because all around her the businesses are struggling. The family slips into poverty based on choices made by people outside of the family (the family being now the mother and the kids). The mother and the kids now have a choice to do everything they can to get out of poverty or life for the time being and live relatively comfortably in poverty. Whether or not to stay in poverty is a choice.
In "All Souls" the mother is not making choices to help the family get out of poverty. She is not saving money, no one in Southie is. This is her most obvious fault as a mother because she is not herself making the tough choice to give her kids the best chance in life. She can't afford to send her kids to better schools than the apparently awful public schools in Southie. She also hasn't instilled in her kids a desire to get out of Southie or a desire to go to school. As hard as it is to go to school in Southie, Ma made no attempt to get her kids to see that education is the only way to break the cycle of poverty.
Staying in poverty is a choice because poverty is a cycle. Families stay in poverty because of an inability to see the way out. The people in Southie became such a tight-knit community that they had a collective mindset about poverty. Southie became a dysfunctional family, kept together by their collective denial of their poverty. They all subscribe to band-aid solutions that satiate only their material desire to be greater than the black people they see in Roxbury. Any challenge in life can only be overcome when it is accepted. Denial is a repeating cycle that buries people in their own lies. No one in Southie commits to making the neighborhood better, they just want it to not be black because that is a barometer for how bad, how poor, a neighborhood can be. No one has ever gotten out of poverty by spending excess amounts of money on clothes when cheap clothes can be bought. At one point Michael Patrick Macdonald relates a time that his mother could have bough all the kids sneakers for $1.49, but the kids made her buy the better brands for more. The mother should have made the kids wear the ugly, cheap, sensible sneakers because that's what a good parent does: they make the difficult decisions that their children are not mature enough to make on their own. Instead, the mother acted immaturely in her own right by succumbing to the peer-pressure of her children. She wanted to be accepted by her kids instead of doing what is best for them. That attitude permeated Southie and is the reason the residents couldn't break the cycle of poverty.
In "All Souls" the mother is not making choices to help the family get out of poverty. She is not saving money, no one in Southie is. This is her most obvious fault as a mother because she is not herself making the tough choice to give her kids the best chance in life. She can't afford to send her kids to better schools than the apparently awful public schools in Southie. She also hasn't instilled in her kids a desire to get out of Southie or a desire to go to school. As hard as it is to go to school in Southie, Ma made no attempt to get her kids to see that education is the only way to break the cycle of poverty.
Staying in poverty is a choice because poverty is a cycle. Families stay in poverty because of an inability to see the way out. The people in Southie became such a tight-knit community that they had a collective mindset about poverty. Southie became a dysfunctional family, kept together by their collective denial of their poverty. They all subscribe to band-aid solutions that satiate only their material desire to be greater than the black people they see in Roxbury. Any challenge in life can only be overcome when it is accepted. Denial is a repeating cycle that buries people in their own lies. No one in Southie commits to making the neighborhood better, they just want it to not be black because that is a barometer for how bad, how poor, a neighborhood can be. No one has ever gotten out of poverty by spending excess amounts of money on clothes when cheap clothes can be bought. At one point Michael Patrick Macdonald relates a time that his mother could have bough all the kids sneakers for $1.49, but the kids made her buy the better brands for more. The mother should have made the kids wear the ugly, cheap, sensible sneakers because that's what a good parent does: they make the difficult decisions that their children are not mature enough to make on their own. Instead, the mother acted immaturely in her own right by succumbing to the peer-pressure of her children. She wanted to be accepted by her kids instead of doing what is best for them. That attitude permeated Southie and is the reason the residents couldn't break the cycle of poverty.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Integration
It is a natural human reaction to fear and perceive differences between people. It is impossible to see a person of different skin color from one's own and not understand that difference. In today's America we are, for the most part, evolved enough in our thinking that race does not cause irrational hate. However, we still see race and it is something to be overcome in interaction between people of different skin colors. When a white man talks to a black man, they both see that they are different from one another, but the initial realization that there is a barrier between them that is their skin color does not inhibit them for more than a split second. True color-blindness visually, the quality of not taking race into account in anyway by not acknowledging it, is impossible because people will always see differences first and foremost. However, we are growing closer to the color-blindness that Malcolm X learned about in Mecca wherein race does not matter because it is accepted and any cultural barriers are overcome. Malcolm X said that all races are inherently different by virtue of who they are, but this is not cause for hate of any kind.
The white man began to subjugate the black man out of fear and a desire to better his own race. The evolutionary reaction to better oneself and care for oneself above those of different qualities is the root of this behavior. The white man felt he was better than the black man, but was afraid of him because of his differences from them. So he subjugated them without considering that the men and women he came across were in fact just that, men and women. Evolutionary principles hold up between species. Differences between humans are not cause for any kind of subjugation, physical or economic.
In America today we are accepting enough of these differences that they don't matter as deciding factors. Most people in America do not care if a politician is black or white, but care about his views and ability to get the job done. We are still working towards expunging the prejudices based in race that we still hold in our minds. America has overcome racism in most areas in that people are not denied chances based on race. However, chances are narrowed by that barrier between people of different skin colors. When there is an obstacle to be overcome that can be gone around simply people choose the route of least resistance. Unfortunately that barrier is not going to go down completely because race cannot be unseen, but the barrier can be changed to the same magnitude that it has for any man, white, black, or any race.
If two men are interviewed for a job what should happen is the interviewer should notice all discernible physical characteristics initially. Candidate one: white man, well-dressed, short hair, Armani suit, etc. The details don't matter. Candidate two: black man, well-dressed, short hair, Armani suit, etc. The details matter suddenly. The white man coughs in the interview and fails to cover his mouth. Little bacterium are breeding on all of the interviewers important papers. The white man wipes his nose with his sleeve. His sloppiness is manifesting itself, but he waves it off: "I'm sick, allergies." The black man is perfect for the job, yet the decision is difficult because of the barrier. The barrier needs to be taken down so that we notice race simply as a detail, a way to see people physically, not a way to define that person's personality.
A popular example of how race is at the forefront of our minds is the story that involves a black man and it starts like this: "So I was going home today and this black guy gets on the train." Why does it matter that he is a black man? It doesn't and it has no impact on the story. There is no problem with describing people physically unless consistency is lacking. When the same person tells a story starting like this: "So I saw this guy when I was walking home today," and the man was white, the barrier is making itself manifest.
Integration is possible and already very present, but the barrier between people is not where it should be. Race is still something outside of physical description and until it means nothing more than a possibility of differences between people culturally we are not a united race, a human race. Differences of ideas and beliefs are the only differences that should separate people, physically or mentally. We may be physically integrated in America today, but our mental integration is behind because of that barrier.
The white man began to subjugate the black man out of fear and a desire to better his own race. The evolutionary reaction to better oneself and care for oneself above those of different qualities is the root of this behavior. The white man felt he was better than the black man, but was afraid of him because of his differences from them. So he subjugated them without considering that the men and women he came across were in fact just that, men and women. Evolutionary principles hold up between species. Differences between humans are not cause for any kind of subjugation, physical or economic.
In America today we are accepting enough of these differences that they don't matter as deciding factors. Most people in America do not care if a politician is black or white, but care about his views and ability to get the job done. We are still working towards expunging the prejudices based in race that we still hold in our minds. America has overcome racism in most areas in that people are not denied chances based on race. However, chances are narrowed by that barrier between people of different skin colors. When there is an obstacle to be overcome that can be gone around simply people choose the route of least resistance. Unfortunately that barrier is not going to go down completely because race cannot be unseen, but the barrier can be changed to the same magnitude that it has for any man, white, black, or any race.
If two men are interviewed for a job what should happen is the interviewer should notice all discernible physical characteristics initially. Candidate one: white man, well-dressed, short hair, Armani suit, etc. The details don't matter. Candidate two: black man, well-dressed, short hair, Armani suit, etc. The details matter suddenly. The white man coughs in the interview and fails to cover his mouth. Little bacterium are breeding on all of the interviewers important papers. The white man wipes his nose with his sleeve. His sloppiness is manifesting itself, but he waves it off: "I'm sick, allergies." The black man is perfect for the job, yet the decision is difficult because of the barrier. The barrier needs to be taken down so that we notice race simply as a detail, a way to see people physically, not a way to define that person's personality.
A popular example of how race is at the forefront of our minds is the story that involves a black man and it starts like this: "So I was going home today and this black guy gets on the train." Why does it matter that he is a black man? It doesn't and it has no impact on the story. There is no problem with describing people physically unless consistency is lacking. When the same person tells a story starting like this: "So I saw this guy when I was walking home today," and the man was white, the barrier is making itself manifest.
Integration is possible and already very present, but the barrier between people is not where it should be. Race is still something outside of physical description and until it means nothing more than a possibility of differences between people culturally we are not a united race, a human race. Differences of ideas and beliefs are the only differences that should separate people, physically or mentally. We may be physically integrated in America today, but our mental integration is behind because of that barrier.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Malcolm X reflection
Well shit. I'm white and my people have done some pretty awful stuff. I think that I'm having the right reaction when I feel awful initially, then analyze myself to see how I am sanity-wise.
I don't know any legitimate racists, but I can imagine. Malcolm X does an excellent job of making us understand why white people think they are better than everyone of a non-white race and how they exhibit that insane supremacy. I think that I'm also doing a good thing while reading this by not retreating to my cave (like the ALLEGORY) and listening to some Minor Threat because as unfair as it is to hate an individual for his skin color, even white devils, it's even more unfair to block out any anger against the white man. The white man deserves to feel pretty bad for a little bit, just long enough to know how wrong racism is.
I think that Malcolm X is a smarter man than the doctrine of the Nation of Islam forces him to sound. Some of the points about Dr. Yacub (whose story sounds like a hell of a sci-fi book) and women are downright not true. However, the points that Malcolm focuses on more are very important and very true. The white man, as a collective, acted like devils to the black man, which is why "devils" is the collective term that the Nation assigns to the white man. I think that Malcolm initially did think of every white man as a "devil" and hated him for that despite his stance on civil rights. This hatred was overcome, however, by Malcolm's ability to think of the term "devil" as a way to question the white man. The purpose of using such strong language was to get people, specifically black people, to see the wrongs that the white man endorses. It creates an us vs. them mentality that is necessary for change.
Malcolm X's philosophy is a starter philosophy about change. I do not agree that two races should not be together because in the end everyone is a human being and while our races can be different and impact our cultural background in different ways, blacks and whites can live together. The problem that Malcolm X saw with integration and coexisting was that he saw no evidence that blacks that worked their way up to be legitimately on the level of whites would be accepted for who they are. When all is equal then different peoples can coexist, but when one people oppresses another to the point where the oppressed has no awareness of their culture, a major point of the Nation of Islam's goals, then there can be no benefits from integration. Malcolm X saw that this tokenism was a facade meant to pacify the black man to avoid confrontation.
Malcolm X wanted everyone to accept cultural differences and realize that we do not have to pretend to be color blind, but we can live together if we are equal. Malcolm X did not want that in his time because he did not trust the white man to keep everything equal, to act fairly.
I don't see why he would trust the white man. After all, they had acted like devils for a long time and the black man had not improved his social standing very much. I can't blame any black man in that time for hating white people, but if a black man can't get past that hate for the sake of true equality, beyond the tempting nature of revenge, then he is not acting righteously.
I don't know any legitimate racists, but I can imagine. Malcolm X does an excellent job of making us understand why white people think they are better than everyone of a non-white race and how they exhibit that insane supremacy. I think that I'm also doing a good thing while reading this by not retreating to my cave (like the ALLEGORY) and listening to some Minor Threat because as unfair as it is to hate an individual for his skin color, even white devils, it's even more unfair to block out any anger against the white man. The white man deserves to feel pretty bad for a little bit, just long enough to know how wrong racism is.
I think that Malcolm X is a smarter man than the doctrine of the Nation of Islam forces him to sound. Some of the points about Dr. Yacub (whose story sounds like a hell of a sci-fi book) and women are downright not true. However, the points that Malcolm focuses on more are very important and very true. The white man, as a collective, acted like devils to the black man, which is why "devils" is the collective term that the Nation assigns to the white man. I think that Malcolm initially did think of every white man as a "devil" and hated him for that despite his stance on civil rights. This hatred was overcome, however, by Malcolm's ability to think of the term "devil" as a way to question the white man. The purpose of using such strong language was to get people, specifically black people, to see the wrongs that the white man endorses. It creates an us vs. them mentality that is necessary for change.
Malcolm X's philosophy is a starter philosophy about change. I do not agree that two races should not be together because in the end everyone is a human being and while our races can be different and impact our cultural background in different ways, blacks and whites can live together. The problem that Malcolm X saw with integration and coexisting was that he saw no evidence that blacks that worked their way up to be legitimately on the level of whites would be accepted for who they are. When all is equal then different peoples can coexist, but when one people oppresses another to the point where the oppressed has no awareness of their culture, a major point of the Nation of Islam's goals, then there can be no benefits from integration. Malcolm X saw that this tokenism was a facade meant to pacify the black man to avoid confrontation.
Malcolm X wanted everyone to accept cultural differences and realize that we do not have to pretend to be color blind, but we can live together if we are equal. Malcolm X did not want that in his time because he did not trust the white man to keep everything equal, to act fairly.
I don't see why he would trust the white man. After all, they had acted like devils for a long time and the black man had not improved his social standing very much. I can't blame any black man in that time for hating white people, but if a black man can't get past that hate for the sake of true equality, beyond the tempting nature of revenge, then he is not acting righteously.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Frankly Speaking-Life is Beautiful
"Life is Beautiful" showed me the true meaning of realistic optimism. Frankl discussed this concept, tragic optimism, in "Man's Search For Meaning." Any rational person can see that at any given moment the likelihood of something good happening is low. Usually bad things happen because people generally aren't very nice to the vast majority of other people. But if everyone lived their lives in the mindset of eternal pessimism related to events then nothing would get done. I believe that humans are all optimistic and that optimism has to get beaten out of them by the pain of the world around them. Frankl accounts for this when he discusses getting through suffering in a concentration camp. Those who started smoking their cigarettes had given up on their optimism. They have had their eternal optimism beaten out of them. That optimism is hope and hope for a better life is the reason for living. Life is driven by goals, which Frankl talks about in his discussion of logotherapy.
In "Life is Beautiful," the father is happy because he sees that love is present in life and it is attainable. He finds love and he knows that he will always have it with him. Frankl discusses the eternal nature of love, too. Love is one of the purposes of life because it is the only emotion that goes beyond reason. That is the true nature of optimism, overcoming reason with hope. No, pessimists, broken people, hateful cynics, something nice probably won't happen in the next few minutes. Yes, I know that people do awful things, but people also fall in love and enjoy that more than anything in the world. Louis CK has a great line about optimism: "You know what an optimist is? An optimist is someone who thinks: 'Hey maybe something nice will happen!'"I love Louis, but he is not right here. I used to think of optimism this way and recognized how blinding it is for people who call themselves optimists. But really optimism is natural. We all want life to be easier, happier. That's why the father in "Life is Beautiful" lied to his son. He didn't want him to lose his optimism. Hoping for a happier life is natural and if someone decides to stop hoping for life to get better then they are lost to pessimism. Realistic thought processes are optimistic because we can realize that we can always overcome our situations to find meaning through love or some amount of joy.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Album Review
One of my favorite bands is Dinosaur Jr. The hardcore-hard rock band is made up of J Mascis, Lou Barlow, and Murph. Mascis and Barlow were first in a band together with Deep Wound. Mascis is easily my favorite guitarist and my favorite Dinosaur Jr. albums are those on which he is allowed to shred for multiple solos per song. The other main ingredient for a great Dinosaur Jr. album is Lou Barlow singing with Mascis. Dinosaur broke up for a period in the 90s because of ongoing fighting between Mascis and Barlow. Mascis was always considered the frontman of the group and I think that he liked this image enough to want to take over the singing duties completely. The band's first two records were there best and my favorite is "Dinosaur", their self-titled debut (the band was called Dinosaur until they found out that another band was already called that).
What makes Dinosaur amazing is the change of tone and speed within the songs that happens on a dime. Usually switching between singers, the songs frequently completely change and the effect is powerful. The guitar style on this album is my favorite of Mascis'. Gritty and melodic playing off of each other. Some songs are pure shred and some soften up. "Mountain Man" is the most full-on hard rock song on the album and they even let Murph sing it. The lyrics are about leaving a relationship and society for the comforting savagery of the mountains. The singing makes it seem like the singer is going through an existential crisis and he couldn't handle a relationship filled with lies and apparently cheating. I love this song even though it is very dissimilar to the rest of the album.
My favorite song on the album is "Cats in a Bowl". This is a Lou Barlow song all the way through. The bass is at the forefront of the song with Mascis' guitar going crazy in the background. The lyrics are about being stuck in a rut in life and feeling like everywhere you go you're in the same place and the personal problems involved. "Even if I leave/ someone just like me/ popped out of the ground." And the ending suggests insanity and its crazy good. HAHAHA I'M SO FUNNY.
The reason this album is so amazing to me is that it captures exactly how I feel when I'm angry, sad, whatever AND I love it musically so I can listen to this in any mood. The angry at the world philosophy of "Dinosaur" is not angry at people, or whining, so much as wondering why bad things happen, why people are unhappy. "Pointless" is an instrumental with Barlow yelling in the background "I'm starving!" The world, according to this album, is boring and cruel and yet we try to find love. "Repulsion" and "Severed Lips" are love songs about how hard love is to keep and that no one is easy to please and no relationship is simple.
"The world drips down like gravy/ with thoughts of love so hazy."- "Repulsion"
"Hope I brought you some happiness/ I believe I just had to get on/ 'Cause this just wasn't a world/ I wished to need to find."- "Severed Lips"
Dinosaur Jr. went downhill for me after this album even though I love the next two: "You're Living All Over Me" and "Bug." 'Dinosaur" has everything I love about the band in great abundance. Hardcore is good for the soul.
What makes Dinosaur amazing is the change of tone and speed within the songs that happens on a dime. Usually switching between singers, the songs frequently completely change and the effect is powerful. The guitar style on this album is my favorite of Mascis'. Gritty and melodic playing off of each other. Some songs are pure shred and some soften up. "Mountain Man" is the most full-on hard rock song on the album and they even let Murph sing it. The lyrics are about leaving a relationship and society for the comforting savagery of the mountains. The singing makes it seem like the singer is going through an existential crisis and he couldn't handle a relationship filled with lies and apparently cheating. I love this song even though it is very dissimilar to the rest of the album.
My favorite song on the album is "Cats in a Bowl". This is a Lou Barlow song all the way through. The bass is at the forefront of the song with Mascis' guitar going crazy in the background. The lyrics are about being stuck in a rut in life and feeling like everywhere you go you're in the same place and the personal problems involved. "Even if I leave/ someone just like me/ popped out of the ground." And the ending suggests insanity and its crazy good. HAHAHA I'M SO FUNNY.
The reason this album is so amazing to me is that it captures exactly how I feel when I'm angry, sad, whatever AND I love it musically so I can listen to this in any mood. The angry at the world philosophy of "Dinosaur" is not angry at people, or whining, so much as wondering why bad things happen, why people are unhappy. "Pointless" is an instrumental with Barlow yelling in the background "I'm starving!" The world, according to this album, is boring and cruel and yet we try to find love. "Repulsion" and "Severed Lips" are love songs about how hard love is to keep and that no one is easy to please and no relationship is simple.
"The world drips down like gravy/ with thoughts of love so hazy."- "Repulsion"
"Hope I brought you some happiness/ I believe I just had to get on/ 'Cause this just wasn't a world/ I wished to need to find."- "Severed Lips"
Dinosaur Jr. went downhill for me after this album even though I love the next two: "You're Living All Over Me" and "Bug." 'Dinosaur" has everything I love about the band in great abundance. Hardcore is good for the soul.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Alone
When I'm alone, my time can be spent in two ways: wasting time and productive thought, work, etc. I usually waste my alone time. I'm bad at enjoying myself when I'm alone. I can walk by myself and i'll enjoy this, but I still feel myself driven by the urge to go somewhere. I don't usually enjoy "walking around", because I'm conscious of my lack of direction. When I'm going somewhere I can focus on that and my mind will actually think more clearly than when I am idle. I guess this is because I like getting sidetracked. I can work well at one thing and think about another when I get sidetracked. When I'm not engaged in some activity I get sidetracked by even less engaging things. For example: when I do homework that I don't want to do, and am not engaged in it, I end up doing essentially nothing. But when I am reading a good book or writing something I want to write, my mind goes off in all directions. Like it is right now... back to alone thing.
My greatest enjoyment in life is spent with other people, my friends. I am not very comfortable being alone because I don't trust myself to spend my time wisely. When I'm with my friends I am always doing something I deem valuable because I'm enjoying myself. I want to be able to spend time more efficiently and with a greater importance, when I'm alone with my thoughts. I like being alone when I am able to do this, but that doesn't happen as frequently as I would like it to.
I think my current dissatisfaction with my alone-life is due to being alone in the wrong way and in the wrong mood. When I'm angry I want to be alone because I can let my emotions be drowned out by the meaningless things I fill my day with, like television or Cheetos (poor choice of comfort food by seven-year old Peter). But I am never in a very happy mood when I'm alone, truly alone. I think this is because I don't know what to do with myself. I feel a sense of obligation to do homework or SOMETHING. My thoughts need to be enough to satisfy me when I'm alone. I'm getting better, more productive, more thoughtful, but I still waste time and oscillate between a number of time wasting methods when I'm alone. I'll work on it Universe. I'll figure you out. Just give me a little bit of alone time and some more experience.
My greatest enjoyment in life is spent with other people, my friends. I am not very comfortable being alone because I don't trust myself to spend my time wisely. When I'm with my friends I am always doing something I deem valuable because I'm enjoying myself. I want to be able to spend time more efficiently and with a greater importance, when I'm alone with my thoughts. I like being alone when I am able to do this, but that doesn't happen as frequently as I would like it to.
I think my current dissatisfaction with my alone-life is due to being alone in the wrong way and in the wrong mood. When I'm angry I want to be alone because I can let my emotions be drowned out by the meaningless things I fill my day with, like television or Cheetos (poor choice of comfort food by seven-year old Peter). But I am never in a very happy mood when I'm alone, truly alone. I think this is because I don't know what to do with myself. I feel a sense of obligation to do homework or SOMETHING. My thoughts need to be enough to satisfy me when I'm alone. I'm getting better, more productive, more thoughtful, but I still waste time and oscillate between a number of time wasting methods when I'm alone. I'll work on it Universe. I'll figure you out. Just give me a little bit of alone time and some more experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)