Visionary Work

Mr Colbert at his best

Man, I envy you quite honestly and proudly

My girlfriend and I visited a castle last weekend. It was smaller than the ones people usually visit, though I dare say it was much more picturesque, than any one I have ever seen.

My girlfriend is a very inspirational person and I'm glad she convinced me to go. I like castles and nice buildings just fine but an unusually busy period of summer was just over, so I felt overall tired-- almost too tired to go.

After exploring every empty hall, every majestic architectural feat, we headed home. I was happy to be able to rest and also to have visited this castle. The whole thing was good as it was.

Later (now), sitting at home, this trip began to hold importance, other than being a fantastic vacation. As it is said above, I've been very active recently. I was so active, in fact, that I've begun to believe, that it is all right to stop for a little while. Well, OK, periods of relaxation are inevitable, that's true. What I realized, though, is, that even in times of rest and peace, I can't stop completely. We aren't cars, which you turn off, when you arrive at home and turn on the next morning, when you want to go to work. Our breathing doesn't stop, our hearts don't stop beating. Even when the world is quiet, we need to stay in motion, or else, much like our organs, we will be difficult to reactivate. Life can be grand but only if we live it.

does the job

Quickly threw this together and it instantly made me feel less anxious so it might help some of you idek

First of all: get some sleep.

I am going to offer you two arguments. One of them is as rational as it gets and the other one has a personal example.

#1: As much as it's necessary to realize how things change, how everything's transient and how life can get fairly random, it's way overrated.

HIMYM is a sitcom and it's unjust to set high standards for it, I understand that. But I think my expectations should have been met by it because I didn't want it to end with an ultimate moral that somehow makes everything click. Of course no show can run without standing for something, however irrelevant or stupid that thing might be.

The arc of HIMYM and especially the finale really focused on the dynamics of the core five characters but other than that, the dynamics of life. It is a good observation that things are in motion and that cruel things will happen to everyone, undeniably and unavoidably. I further say that it is an important observation, since one may find him-/herself in the false hopes that maybe a good state of things, a good part of life may be preserved. That way of thinking ought to be reformed, illuminated, as it would eventually lead to bitter disappointment. So I accept the value of this point.

On the contrary, it is inadequate. The lead singer of Switchfoot, Jon Foreman, once said it in an interview that today's people have lost their connection with death and danger. If you read Hemingway, many of his characters meet their ends at some point of the story and it's really not a big deal (in the sense that it's not the end of the world, though death's always a big deal, even in Hemingway's works). I was really surprised by the way Robert Wilson teased the woman, who just shot her husband about how their relationship was already pretty bad anyway in The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber. It wasn't a weightless, irrelevant thing, of course, even so, it was the climax of the story, yet Robert Wilson's reaction was different from how, for one, I would react if I saw someone die. This isn't because of Hemingway's particular relationship with violence but because of a more general concept of life--one that's changed over the course of time.

Our culture has been softened so much that it'd be enough for us to realize that things come and go in life. It is treated as a great revelation because we live in much greater safety and we're pretty sure that our safety will not be seriously endangered and when it is endangered in someone's life, we consider it radical. We're so blinded by our security that we don't see past the possibility of change, whereas it would be mandatory to know how to act in case life should bring a wave of it toward us.

I say that a good story can't stop when reaching the so popular phrase of "the perfect imperfection of life" but rather it should offer some sort of remedy. To try to give us options and hopes is what I see as the primary mission of a writer or director.

#2: Hard things don't always happen to us but they are often made by us.

As much as Ted couldn't save his wife, Robin and Barney were completely responsible for the end of their marriage. One could argue that it was "written in the stars" but their personality traits did not determine how their romance will conclude.

Henri Nouwen wrote: "In the depths of my being, I meet my fellow humans with whom I share love and hate, life and death.". Everybody has certain flaws that gradually alienate their partners or that make being married to them difficult. These flaws differ from person to person but in one form or another, they are unquestionably there. It is also true that everyone shares the ability to love.

It's always an invalid defense to say that one was not a good match because of certain qualities or the lack of them and thus the divorce. I wouldn't argue against saying that someone wasn't the one but that should be realized before marriage and not years into it, though it's a sidetrack and I should return to my point...

Let me elaborate by pointing out something in my own life. I've been in a romantic relationship for over three years now. I intend to marry this girl sooner or later and I also intend to be nice to her. Furthermore I'm madly in love with her, what's not a bad thing once you want to marry someone. But there are moments, much like instances of insanity, when I feel distant from her. Sometimes certain traits come into focus that are flat out antagonistic in me and her. I have felt the capability of breaking up. If I ever wanted to end our relationship, there would have been moments for that. Of course, I never wanted to break up with her, that's why we're together, but my point is that I understand how it is in everyone to end a romantic relationship, as I know it is in me, too, whereas I also see that it is also in everyone to hold on to someone, as it is in me, just as well, and as I intend to live my life.

So I say that divorce is not an article of change that happens to some people, inasmuch as it is based on personality traits.

I never made it an issue whether or not the show would have a happy end or take a more dramatic turn. (Personally, I prefer sad ends--well, not in all cases.) And I know it's nonsense to say that a TV show is wrong, especially to say that a sitcom is wrong--but How I Met Your Mother is wrong :) JK

PS: I say it again, have some sleep. Seriously bro.

The famous sit-com, How I Met Your Mother, reached its end finally. It’s been greatly anticipated by many and is currently being hated and scorned by even more. I’ve heard countless negative comments on it but as most people aren’t philosophers, nor particularly good at deeply analyzing films,…

Should've uploaded it some time earlier, sorry folks

I was within and without. Simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.

The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

When am I ready?

We work very hard for things we want and for others that we don't. But it's about all right. However, mostly our efforts turn out to be fruitless. Why is this? Why isn't my book published yet? Why am I not married?

Most often we question the methods and the degree of our commitment but other times simply accept failure. None of this and at the same time all of this is right. How can that be?

Firstly, we can never work too hard. There's always a bit more we could do. Yes, even when we feel we've done our best. It is constantly possible to push a little harder, to get somewhat better. And there are times, when our work needs polishing. It's extremely hard to admit, when what we think we've worked for with all our might, cries out for being corrected. It's truly damn difficult to say, that it isn't that good after all.

Secondly, we easily get obsessed with a wide range of variety of things, from what we ought to keep ourselves far. And then it's inevitable, that we lay down our weapons and armours, and whisper lowly: I give up. Then we become free to do what can work for us.

But no matter what we do and how we do it. Sometimes we are destined to achieve success at certain fields, still, we struggle and yet get nowhere. That's because we might not be quite ready. The Oracle tells Neo in the Matrix: Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but it looks like you're waiting for something. And sometimes, very rarely, it looks like we're all waiting for something, just don't know what. We think we'll know when we see it. But it's not something we can see or something that's basically external. No. Just like in Neo's case, we've got to start believing. Faith is the last barrier, that separates us from entering the promise land.

Don’t let people pronounce your name wrong - don’t let them see you walking home. Don’t let them see your mother in the playground, smelling of spices. Bite your lip when you see a white woman in the street wearing a shalwar kameez. ‘I’m on the way to a wedding,’ she drawls. ‘A friend got me this s-…this thing. Isn’t it pretty?’ I don’t know, lady. Tell me, how much do you care about the merchants who jumped to their feet and dove through reams of fabric to find the right one? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn’t be angry that you’re wearing a garment I can’t wear without eye rolls and insults and, ‘fucking Paki. Go back to India, go back to where you came from.’ I was born here, and I’ve earned my place here. More so than you. I’ve had to work for it. I’ve had to know my shit countless times, be able to list off members of the government on both hands, talk this way, eat this way - my parents stopped sending me to school with rice so early because the other kids couldn’t fathom lunches that weren’t sandwiches. Can you even pronounce ‘shalwar kameez’? Let me hear it, I’m not convinced. I don’t know, my teacher had to ask me how to say my name three times this morning - and each time I said it she would repeat it slowly, squinting, as though it were made from a different alphabet. So I guess you could say I’m a sceptic. Wait. Is that a bindi on your forehead? Where’s your temple? More importantly, where were you yesterday when my Religious Education teacher was telling me how the whites helped educate the poor little Indians and that 1947 was a bad year for ‘us’? My country’s independence was the Empire’s downfall, and the Empire gave us nothing but pain. My grandparents were driven off the border of Pakistan and forced into poverty, and here was a person trying to tell me that the colonies that terrorised my family away, away from their homes and their cities and their loves, did a good thing. Where were you then? I see the henna on your hands, and I am here to say that my culture is not a trend for you to love this season and throw away - my heritage is not your excuse to be ‘exotic’. You are not welcome to pick and choose the attractive parts of being me. Take my mother’s bindi spot, take the unwanted advances of old white men that come along with it - they think we should be honoured to be hit upon by a white man. Take the henna off my hands, and take the sweat and blood of Indian workers trying to make an honest day’s work charging fifty rupees in the street to ice patterns on flesh. Take my sari, take my shalwar, take my lengha and take the low self esteem that growing up in a white society has given me. Take it, take it all.

it might be in this month’s ‘vogue’, but that doesn’t make it yours | ishani jasmin (via ishanijasmin)

I think it's very important to talk about this.

In today's world even the weak, the poor and the disenfranchised are empowered to speak and that's undoubtedly a huge step forward on the arc of history. Inequalities, in relation to representing ourselves, are being diminished. I mean it in the sense that the internet and the social media have given us platforms, where you can upload your content, even if you have far-from-professional equipment and an amazing number of people have access to it. On the internet people choose for themselves what kind of content they view or read or listen to, ergo people's inclination and taste are the major factors contributing to getting heard and not the wealth of content-creators.

After this rather lengthy introduction, let's get to the point.

As the poet's mastery cannot be argued, her point may be the more so. 

Even the first issues mentioned are quite strange. How can an English speaker be expected to pronounce Indian words right? And this is a returning motif. I don't want to waste many words on this question but just say, the poet goes to Denmark and she can pronounce all the names properly? Is the source of this complaint that she can pronounce the English names perfectly and it's different the other way around? Is the part:"as though it were made from a different alphabet" suggesting that the Indian people speak identical to Americans? This whole issue may lead to something more profound and more light may be shed on the source of her frustration as I progress with my arguments.

I would also like to note that the poet is offended by white people wearing Indian traditional garments, without understanding that culture or caring much for it. I find this a very complicated issue and this might be discussed later, too.

The whole poem is filled with anti-imperialist, anti-white feelings and the words are very suggestive. They suggest intolerance, racism, cultural disrespect and such things, which surely originate from experience and a certain kind of environment.

If the poet's environment majorly consists of people, who behave uneccaptably, maybe it's really about time for her to move. I know it sounds bad to ask a victim to change, rather than changing the villains or moving them but in this case it's simply the better solution--of course I only mean this in a theoretical sense, not literally. I said what's above because America does not majorly consist of people acting and speaking filled with racism and/or intolerance. It may be said that certain studies--very reliable ones--show that most Americans have racist attitudes but--just as reliable--studies also show that despite those suggested attitudes, most Americans act and/or speak tolerantly and in antiracist ways. So if it is true that the poet mostly meets racism, intolerance, then she just so happens to live in an improbable place, but she could move almost anywhere and would be treated differently. But if she doesn't live in this very unfortunate coincidence, then it may be that she's the victim of a hurtful minority. However, if that's the case, and she's writing a poem about this smaller group of people, I have to say that it's not a tendency, much rather the ugly side of human nature, very similar to that part of it, which is called criminality; and it's not all right to commit a crime, as it is not all right to be racist or intolerant but it cannot be eradicated completely--quite sadly--but it will remain with humanity forever.

The poet suggests that white people don't have adequate knowledge of her culture, yet they exploit it. If a person is not a part of a given culture, he/she cannot choose to cherry-pick some of the attractive parts of given culture--argues she. It might be based on:

#1: the idea that people, who belong to her culture, have a certain narrative identity, which will also manifest in their culture. This identity brings a lot of pain and a lot of joy but for someone to ignore the pain and embrace the joy only, would leave the rest of the people with a very bad taste: that they have to live with the pain as well and it is an unfair thing for someone to experience their joy without having to experience their sorrow. This suggestion, however, is ignorant toward the fact that people from other cultures have their own pains, ones that may be entirely dissimilar but nonetheless serious.

#2: the idea that selecting attractive parts of their culture will spread an idealized, romanticized version of given culture, thus making the people ignorant toward the things they've suffered. For this to be true, it would also have to be true that these certain manifestations spread in a way that will affect how people look at Indian culture. It is possible that it forms people's views and they will, in fact, have certain stereotypes, romantic ideas about this culture but what must also be observed is that fashion does not take something else's place. Newspapers aren't afflicted by fashion clichés--they might be afflicted by other clichés but that's not the question. So if someone has an image, solely based on fashion's impact, then that person would have no idea at all without the Indian garments. The real question is: is it more detrimental to think about India as the place where there are beautiful clothes, than not thinking anything about India at all. As far as I can tell, they aren't very different in effect, since none of them will make anyone have hostile attitudes toward India and none of them will make anyone more friendly toward her.

#3: the idea that selecting the attractive parts of their culture will make the people subject to stereotypes. It is, of course, terrible to be looked at as already completely known, just because belonging to this or that culture. We demand to be seen in our full complexity and uniqueness and that seems to be our right to do so. What is not observed here is that people can't view others in their complexity, only a few of them, at maximum. So if a certain culture's stereotype will contribute to another stereotype that others are forming about you, it's not unwise to keep in mind that no one really is perceived as they are by the vast majoriy of people they meet. I know it's an important issue today to fight prejudice in the world but prejudice cannot be undone, and it is basically a mistake to oppose it; it originates from identifying prejudice with racism, which might be defined as a certain kind of prejudice but then, prejudice is just a certain kind of attitude, which we all have toward all sorts of things and there's nothing we have against that.

I'd like to mention how the poet discusses India's relation to the West. There's a nod to the general notion of America exploiting their cheap labor and the evil Empire that once ruled half the world.

#1: The US could have a better way of dealing with cheap labor, that's true, of course, however, she can't be blamed for the poverty in India. There's been economic struggle for a long time and its roots go back to social strife, which did not ease with the hardships of pathfinding in he second half of the 20th century, though it's been there even before that. And the way world economy has moved forward was rather hard for India to figure out and a lot of poor decisions have been made, which of course, don't mean that India would be responsible for all of the bad things happening there but it's still mandatory to consider that before looking at richer countries with contempt. And what's also important to see is that India's improving rapidly now and she's been on the curve going up for a little while now, so there's no need to look at her as a mud-hole of poverty, since her fate is not written in stone. And last but not least, not all Indians are browsing among fabrics. Truth be told, the poet isn't doing much for those merchants, either, just by thinking about them or being their comrade. Economic growth, unbuyest bureaucracy and clean politics could be of tremendous help to them and I hope we're going that way--at least as far as I can choose to do my work in favor of that.

#2: The British Empire was, before everything else, seeking her own interests in the world. It's understandable on one side and it means having India on the second place, at most, on the list of priorities, on the other side, which isn't ideal for India. Well, this is how it's easy to think about it but it isn't how it is. India's relationship with the Empire was very complicated with a large amount of both ups and downs on their way together, so it's always very hard to say it was good or bad for India. It was complicated. The poet referred to 1947, which was the year, when India became independent and also when she broke up into India and Pakistan. I don't know whether the poet's family was on India's or on Pakistan's side at the time of this affair but to blame the British for the bad things that happened then is completely nonsensical. When the Indo-Pakistani War, mainly over Kashmir, happened, and when immense crowds of people had to leave their homes because of things out of their power and interest, it was Lord Mountbatten, who had to go back with his forces, to a country, that had already gained its independence, only to try to moderate this humanitarian catastrophe. Even Nehru, the current leader of India at the time, saw it better to have the British forces there, which doesn't mean that their presence was absolutely good or absolutely bad, just that they aren't the disruptors of India.

The poet supposes, but never explicitly mentions, that there's white supremacy in he world, causing pain and turmoil all over the globe. It can be seen in her personal experience, in her narrative identity and from these we can have a general idea about the phenomena. But let me ask: is the poet right in her arguments? If we look at the people who liked her post, can't we see quite a few white people there? When people hurt her, oppress her, say racist things, does it happen because they're white? Are all white people like that?

It is plain to see that not all white people are disrespectful. I value the poet's poetry but I also value her culture, even so, I've chosen to learn about it, so that I could understand it more fully and not live in the world of dumb stereotypes. I respect the poet and I'm white and I know I'm not alone.

Just a sidenote: It would be out of this world to talk about the collectivity of white people, as we could discuss Hungary's* complicated relationship with the US. Hungary's not a rich country, the major difference between her and India would be that western people think India's more exotic but they'd probably consider them both quite alien.

This piece of poetry is full of thoughts and I know I've eventually failed to grasp them all and respond to them all. I don't mean to hurt the poet or say this verse is bad, as it is not. What I'm trying to do is to bring us closer to each other--I want us to see that we're not really that far away anyway.

*Hungarian people are also mainly white people.