#6 on detachment

Ok. Finally something's been bugging me enough to write about it.

I was on a fairly packed bus a while ago. It was just after 6pm, tired people coming home from work. At one of the stops, the driver normally hands over to another driver. So he stopped the bus, turned off the engine and proceeded to gather his things. For the next minute or so I had a surreal experience. I was sitting amongst 20 or so people towards the back and everyone was SILENT, either looking ahead or reading. Someone's iPod was playing. I almost felt like saying "So how was everyone's day?". Nobody knew each other and I guess that is then the norm. People just want to be left alone. It often happens that someone is abused or attacked in the presence of by-standers and the by-standers either pretend not to notice or do absolutely nothing. Don't get involved, don't get hurt.. but I digress. In a densely packed city where people are around lots of others very often, we are completely detached from those around us.

I live in a block of 4 units. I've been here for almost 5 years. Over this time I have only spoken regularly with two of my neighbours. Both have moved since then. Now I have 3 neighbours with whom I have not spoken (apart from a token Hi, How are you?). How many other people don't know their neighbours? Is there any reason why people shouldn't know their neighbours? This made me want to organise a BBQ and invite everyone in my block, not only to get to know them but to give them a chance to get to know each other. I figure that if that is the only contact I'll have with some of them it'll be better than what we have now.

So what is this social norm that we have developed? Is it a generalisation to say that people who live in the country value their community much more than those in a city? In this age of individualism and survivalism, are we forgetting the benefits of community? Now if it's a good thing to get to know your neighbours then where do you draw the line? Is someone living two houses away not your neighbour?

Is it a good idea to connect to people you encounter anywhere? Aren't we all a part of the 'human community'? Remember Lion King? 'We are One'? A lot of Tool's songs contain this theme too - 'Schism', 'Right in Two'. We are unique and the Other is someone foreign and different. We are constantly reminded of our differences. We can't relate to or connect to some people because they're not like us. It's so hard to believe that we COULD be like them. We could become homeless. We could be suffering, hungry, injured, assaulted or be facing the multitude of issues others face. But most of the times we're not and so it's easy to stay detached. Is it a fear of something bad happening if we try to connect? Are we kept busy by our lifestyles and don't have time? Would you react differently if it was your good friend?

My goal this week is to talk to strangers at every opportunity.

To be continued...

#5 the system

A few days ago I took a call from a woman who needed help with repairs in her studio apartment. There was mould and a roof leak that got so bad that she woke up one night with water dripping on her face. She was now staying at a friend's place. Needless to say, she had complained many times to the real estate agent but nothing had been done and relations had deteriorated to the point where she felt too intimidated to speak up. So I got the low-down and offered to talk to the agent on her behalf.

I call Jacquie and politely express my concern about the tenant's situation. I have all her escapes covered and am ready to pounce with relevant legislation and counter-arguments. That's when she tells me that the owner of the unit is a farmer. He's in deep shit because of the droughts and interest rates. He can't afford his mortgage repayments and is gonna default very soon. Obviously he has no money for any repairs. So here we are, all on the same side, getting fucked by the system and only occasionally realising this fact.

This reminded me of a recent youtube of a concert/protest by Rage Against The Machine where Tom said to the cops that they actually had more in common with all the people there than with the greedy, mad politicians inside. He called on them to realise that we have been turned against each other when we're actually suffering together.

We're like pawns and until we promote to the 8th rank we will continue to be sacrificed by those that are playing the Game.

#4 on attachment

Has somebody close to you ever died? How did you feel? Why then do you not feel the same when people die every day?

My guess would be: closeness.

When you become close to someone they have a much more intense emotional effect on you and you become 'attached' on various levels. You share a more relaxed and open connection than what you would share with strangers. And if you lose that person, it makes sense that you would suffer on a much deeper level than, say, if you read about some guy dying in Iraq.

A little story for you: Luco - one of my favourite highschool teachers taught latin and greek. He was an oldschool mysogynist and took the whole 'ancient-greece-man-boy-love' thing a bit seriously. He used to say completely inappropriate things but we kinda just ignored that. Yet compared to all the other teachers, he was a true radical. He expounded the classics and tried to open our eyes to life. Sadly, the bastard was barking up the wrong age-group. All we cared about were magic cards and handball.

A few years after I graduated he was charged with a shitload counts of pedophilia from way back. I remember how he taught us about Socrates and described in detail why Socrates had chosen to die instead of running away. Ironically, Luco killed himself before he could be found guilty, imprisoned and most likely mutilated.

So what are you thinking now? No, I didn't become attached to him. No, he didn't touch me in places. He encouraged me to use my brain, to be analytical and to question bullshit. The monster gave me value. One of the things that stood out was when he came into the classroom once, pissed off about something, and asked us what was wrong with not caring about someone's death in a newspaper. He went on to say that our emotional detachment from most of the world is a defence mechanism. If we became attached to everyone around we would just turn into a depressed and sobbing wreck.

There's so much shit happening to people around the world and we couldn't care less. Yeah, you might donate here, forward an email there, support a child maybe. But do you cry about it? When you hear about a tragic death does it make you hysterical? Do you sob in shock with that detached and alien clarity that comes with real grief? Of course not. Do you sometimes say 'Oh that's terrible' when you really mean 'Oh. Ok. Whatever'.

So where should we draw the line? How many people should we become attached to? How many people can we let in and yet maintain that defence mechanism? Who are your 'loved ones'?

Deviation one:

Ok, now imagine that you loved every human in the world like your
best friend: Mr Jesus.

Deviation two:

Now imagine you were detached from everyone in the world:
Mr Psychopath.

Deviation (one + two) / zero

Chop up ingredients and mix well. Serve fresh.

Now imagine Mr Jesus Psychopath whose emotions are like a sputtering tap with screwed plumbing.

sound interesting? then read on

#3 Identitties

Alright. I took a heavy-duty rubber plunger, stuck it into my head and pumped my mind clean through. I expect more regular blogorrhea now. Enjoy!

I can't quite put my finger on it. My mind creates 'frames' of reference for all my interactions with people. I'm more comfortable with some people than with others. Some make me extremely nervous while others I treat like best friends. But WHY?! I am the same person every moment of my life.

The point is that some people act truly themselves all the time and this has a certain sense of integrity - the opposite of insecurity. But you can be secure and still need to 'act'. Me? I'm a social chameleon to such an extent that I don't even have my own public identity. I create it from my interactions with people. Why? I started really understanding this when I read 'Rant' by Chuck P. Car salesmen sell cars by creating a psychological rapport with the customer. They mimic their behaviour. Did you know that people have a preferred sense?

If you say things like 'See you later' or 'I'll see what I can do' you're visual. If you say 'Talk soon' or 'Sounds good' you're audial. And tactile? 'Catch you later' and 'Hold on a minute'. So far I haven't met any 'smell' or 'taste' people. You might say 'Fuck that' they're just phrases I picked up randomly. But why did you pick those specific ones? Huh? Anyway, the point is that if you mimic a person's preferred sense they'll subconsciously find you more comfortable to be with. And that's only the start. There's speech, body language, mannerisms, etc. It's total manipulation.

I've been doing it since childhood.

Why? Can you keep a secret? Yeah, sure you can.

Anyway. Ask yourself - do I behave differently around different people or in different situations? Am I defined by social etiquette? Social constraints make the world go round, but how much do they influence the 'real' me? Do I tone it down in front of my boss? Have I ever behaved 'inappropriately'? Have I ever said "Wow! I can't believe I said that." Am I ever truly myself?

"Who am I? Where am I going?" ~ The Sopranos.

Sometimes you just have to answer.

#2 Is the glass half full, half empty or.. ?

Do you consider yourself an optimist? A pessimist? A realist? A whogivesashitist?

This is a pretty generalised rant, but I want to clarify some of the things I've recently read/pondered. I actually started thinking about this after reading about the International Relations theories of  realism (which, to me, should be called pessimism) as well as being introduced to Antonio Gramsci via Marxist theories.

I used to think of myself as an optimist. I smile a lot and am generally cheerful. If you look at it purely physiologically, stressing is bad for your health. Fact. So finding something to be happy about seems like a pretty healthy (if anything) approach... but I have realised that there are at least two types of optimists - those who find good things and those who deny bad things.

.. and then there's my current boss. He's the most irrational, childish, wacked out optimist I've ever met. His approach to being positive is denying anything negative. I think this is simply wreckless. Negative things are often like pain - a signal that something is wrong and should be fixed. Avoiding this merely exacerbates the damage. This is what led me to question optimism in general...

you see, I think optimism leads to complacency. If you ignore negative things and pretend to be happy you won't be as motivated to change things as someone who thinks everything is going to shit. The danger of the other extreme - pessimism - is apathy. If you're TOO negative, you won't be motivated to change anything anyway. So what's a good balance? 

Gramsci put it perfectly. He called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will". I think it's best to stay cheerful and by entertaining a hope of inherent goodness in people to actually make more people around you happier. Consequently, you've gotta look at things realistically and accept that there are screwed up things in this world but instead of resigning to some apathetic sulk, just be the change you want to see. Whether this is what they call 'realism' I don't know.... but this article summed up a lot of my thoughts really well.

So whatever the glass is, if you're thirsty - drink the fucking thing. Otherwise, leave it for someone else and do something useful with your time.

P.S. Don't worry ~ I'll post some more entertaining stuff soon...

#1: Awareness

How does the floor feel?

How many times have you walked on it yet have you ever felt it? Go on. Run your palm over it. How does it feel? What does it remind you of? Is this in any way important? Now I'm not saying that we ought to go out of our way to feel everything nor to remember every irrelevant detail we encounter. I'm talking about Mindfulness.

Some people are very perceptive and can remember very specific details. Me, I'm often spaced out inside my thoughts and would benefit from taking in more of the external. We remember things better if they're accompanied by strong emotions: fear, anger, lust, desire, laughter... but what Mindfulness means to me is to consciously become aware of the present... notice the little details and simply experience more rather than less.

Can you have complete awareness of a moment? First, you'll need to be aware of all your 5 senses. What can you see around you? What can you hear? Any smells? What can you feel pressing against you? How does your body feel? What's the taste in your mouth?

Now you can check how you feel: good? bad? hungry? thirsty? anxious? bored? tired? scattered? Does your mind trail off distractedly?

I've decided, from now on, to consciously focus on some detail(s) from my day. Today I felt the carpet. It felt a bit cold and not as soft as I'd imagined.