EPTIt's about 5:00 A.M right now, I will probably write most of this today, wake up the next day, recall nothing and write whatever I think will fit tomorrow. As of right now, the cold is creeping in through the pockets of my glossed windows. From above I see nothing but clouds, below them is an artificial reflection the stars. I miss those stars, I think that's the only thing I miss the most about the country air and world: the enjoyment of looking up and not seeing a depth of blackness I can't measure. It's essentially a french vanilla sky up there.
A vanilla sky, I'm not even sure what that is meant to depict, it sounds right but is most likely wrong. It's only lately, alone in my room as the holidays roll by at an ever so surprising rate, that I feel like I'm not thinking entirely suited for this world. In some aspects of my life, things are right, correct, in my favor. I don't take credit from luck and I don't boast about it. In some other parts of my life, personal and even perhaps socially, things don't shine as bright. I always had comfort however at how they balanced out. At how they managed to mix well enough to create a being who can at least express what are his own shortcomings and yet modestly mention that he's not too bad off if we (God forgive) are to compare others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sowlnJj7uI
In the shower, I always fall into this conundrum. My approach of rational thought and logic rely on both fairness and moderation. But then I wonder: How do you consider points of views in a fair and balanced way when life is unfair? The statement "Life is unfair" seems a bit of a sweeping generalization when life itself has so many aspects and possibilities. How is life unfair exactly? Why are we stating Life as a separate entity to one's thoughts? Isn't one's life driven by one's own views and thought processes? If going by that statement, life would be fair by one's own standpoint given they are striving to be keep a fair view of all things.
However then we don't account for others who affect us in unfair ways. We may be affected negatively by others than more joyously and so our emotional state in our life is tipped and imbalanced. That's not to say that our own thinking is entirely neutral or fair, but it maintains itself within a realm of marginal acceptance or tolerance to what we hoped to be, at least in our minds. Going from there, with moderation in mind, wouldn't we want to do things that keeps us emotionally stable. If people are assholes in your life, wouldn't you do things on your own to balance it out? But if we are to be fair with our thought-process, we would spend time also approaching why people were intentionally or perhaps unintentional being negative towards us. What if our own attempt to keep us happy pushed people away by being uncommunicative or potentially anti-social? This is only one stage because we consider this entire thing and bring it one more level, we'd have to balance or keep the fairness between interpersonal and intrapersonal activities. So we have about 5 dynamic dimensions right now: 1. Thought process and direction of life, 2. Social effects and consequential personal maintenance, 3. Interpersonal and intrapersonal activities and their social effects and #4 is what I'm covering now on a potential flawed system of my own lifestyle that I've never completely written out until now (and will probably stop midway before I tire myself out or get a headache). Edit, #5 is way later
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61fiSzpGtTg&feature=related
#4 delves into the social responsibilities and personal obligations. They overlap with one another on the basis that there is a social responsibility to work and contribute to society (and taxes, laws, etc. keep one in place to fundamentally work with and for the society's general well-being), the overlapping or connecting piece is one personal obligation to attend school with the goal of being financially secure (and in turn, contribute to the overall society's functionality). There's a balance to where we want to thrive off junk food and things that we find taste good, but know that there is a personal obligation to also eat healthy and try it balance it out: all in good moderation. The overlapping social responsibility is to also ensure that the foods we are eating and lifestyle we are partaking in is set within the authorities of health such as a doctor, dentist, etc. It's our personal obligation and social responsibility to know we are still capable of working for many years and consuming, giving more labor and continued obligations to other people's businesses and their own self-thriving. This reminds me of the work of a Jack Haas and William Shaffir who talked about the professionalization of doctors. It's late, but isn't this from Goffman's work? They rely on Goffman to analyze the process of role-taking (part of professionalization). Their statement: “success” does not necessarily depend on what you know but on what you can convince legitimating audiences that you know. The duties of a doctor don’t coincide with the reasons people choose to be a doctor. Some choose for the actual responsibilities, but most choose because it confers status and brings them a very comfortable and secure life (a primordial instinct to seek). They all lie however on their application because to be selfish is a job that demands selflessness is both ironic and not conforming to the accepted values Goffman mentions.
So how do you balance that out? (the piece is called: "Taking on the Role of Doctor). This is but an example, but how do you balance out both your own self-enriching goal to not only earn what you've indebted yourself with (so in turn you are burdened to work to get yourself out of a financial negative) while also hiding behind the veil that you are working to save people's lives. Perhaps the article works it out better, but I'm not being cynical, maybe a realist or just deranged all together. This isn't some Jerry Maguire shit where I''m asking you to be self-sacrificial in the name of medical advancement, but also leading me to another consideration...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAYLk6XX2E
Consider you're me and seeing an analyst. How do you trust the analyst's point of view? Please bear above that I am trying to retell events and issues that I have from a fair and balanced point of view. I describe people as I see them, but also mention their value to the general public, but perhaps not valued enough by me personally to consider speaking to them again. Everything I am retelling is from my own memory and so there is an assumed bias already. But here lies the three main issues: 1. How do trust my analyst enough to know that he is working on my mental beneficial behalf? While it takes months to analyze someone and assess any issues they may have (and thus conclude further sessions), how can I assume he is placing my well-being before his own gain. Let's be fair here (haha) and note that he's not exactly delaying things or intentionally running out the clock like a B-Ball game, but let's also be fair in realizing that his own financial well-being may have a role, if minor, in his decisions or assessments. Let's also consider that it's hard for me to contest his views or decisions if they have a rationale I can agree with (and i turn, if I agree with it because there is an assumed and veiled illusion that I trust him because he tries to keep an impartial view of things).
That's #1 and #2 would be: how do I know his assessments are accurate if my retelling of events or issues are assumed bias at the start. Theoretically, I should be fair in all my tellings and admit where I've been wrong or been harsh or, get this, unfair to someone. But what if I intentional withhold things out of shame. What if I repress certain memories subconsciously to dim a part of my life that may have been better than originally figured or recalled? By default, one's answer would be: "well then you don't trust him enough" Well, how do I know if I trust someone sufficiently to tell him? By default, I would have to assume that the illusion he works primarily or his first purpose of his work is to help others in order to start a form of trust, but at the same time, I would be approaching him unrealistically and even then, a trust would be difficult to establish with one-sided conversations. He's not here to tell you his day or his secrets, but you pay him to confer your own? Is knowing that I paid someone to listen meant to reassure me that he has to listen because he is paid and he'd break a basic social responsibility of his own job (and what of his personal obligation)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNaBNvxNJo
Running out of songs :x
Running out of songs :x
Oh, what is #5? Number five is the balance of being both socially acceptable in behavior and maintaining our true thoughts and when alone, our personal behavior. Might as well label this Freudian (or the whole thing I suppose). But I prefer taking a leaflet from Cooley and his writings: "The Looking Glass self". Dale Carnegie once said: “Happiness doesn't depend on any external conditions; it is governed by our mental attitude.” Physical and mental appearances play an important role in one’s portrayal and credibility. Cooley's idea is that we act or behave based off three grounds: the imagination of our appearance to the other person, the imagination of his or her judgment of that appearance and also the self-feeling such as mortification or pride. We act in accordance to the imagined of others, yet we also act to respond to the other and how we want to be perceived while also being equally proud in ourselves or comfortable
A good summarizing quote is that “a man will boast to one person of an action – say some sharp transaction in trade – which he would be ashamed to own to another.” We act and behave in accordance to others and thus will be proud to those we can be proud with, yet ashamed amongst another group or social class/people. Affectation is the magic word and it is self-learned/taught in children at a young age ranging from pestering by tantrum or tugging to stretching out of the arms, etc., anything to get her parent’s attention. The relevance of this matter is instilling the idea that even at a young age; we learn to set the mood, tone or color/image of ourselves to the suited person. We act more demanding to our kind parents than authoritative figures who may be “less sympathetic”. This is self-feeling and it reflects the way we act in order to influence the events that unfold or influence the people we interact with and their choices leading to those events; it’s not manipulation, but rather persuasion on a more sub-conscious level. (Yes, this paragraph has bits of my essay that I wrote a long time ago. But that being said,) how do we know what is true in front of others if we act in accordance to how we want them to react? How do we align both what we want and ensuring that others don't get in the way of it or, hopefully, help us attain where we want to be? Take those questions (and probably many more) and add them to the issues above about the role of being a doctor, to the analyst. Should I try and rope it in with the other 4 points I just made up at the beginning of this drivel of a dialogue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykDEC8V0HiY
Ugh, I don't want to read back what I just wrote. I'll just assume there are no errors, I didn't admit something terribly shameful while at the same time, get across this multi-dimensional faux-pas thinking I've had on my mind for some time now and hope for the best. Comments are appreciated, but given the length of this entry about everything and nothing; I'm not expecting it haha.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AHTGb.jpg)
A sort of odd shot of my favourite spots in Montreal.
A sort of odd shot of my favourite spots in Montreal.2,066 words
See you in... hrm... probably 10 minutes or more 
