Monday, September 20, 2010

The topic we discussed today in sociology really got me thinking. We were taking notes on the proccess of socialization when the professer went off on an interesting and related tangent (its awsome when she does this!). It was about a college somewhere doing a volentary experiment to see the effects of college students not using either facebook or twitter for an entire week. Now I realize I don't have any information about this experiment but I was more interested in the topic than the actual results of the experiment (I like to give the sources for where my more interesting thoughts come from.)

No facebook? No Twitter? FOR A WEEK?! Who would volentarily do such a thing? I surmise that this could be a common reaction of people in my age group. But it was not so long ago that these social networking sites did not exist. When one moved away you very rarely saw your old friends again or knew who they were dating or what type of koolaid they're making or what part of their house they are currently residing in. No you had little connection with these people beyond the occasional phone call or maybe going back to visit and perhaps sending gifts and cards at Christmas. Today we can hardly escape our friends. There is always somone up online willing to talk with you about absolutly nothing.

"Do you watch Lost?"
 But this is a good thing right?  We're more connected and sharing ideas is so easy now! I've never felt more accepted!  I like my cyber friends who i've never met nor do i really know anything about them, but because they have the label of "friend" in my freinds tab I create the realtionshiop as perfect in my mind!! And so little time is spent actually talking with this person that my idealistic view of our relationship is very hard to dispell!! WHY WOULD THIS BE A BAD THING??!?!?!


My friends...this is a bad thing.  Heres my reasoning on why.  It is in all essence addictive not only due to the fact that it gives the (false) feeling of acceptance through "groups" and "fanclubs", it also starves us of actual human interactions while providing a cut down cheaper version that gets us just high enoguh to keep us coming back.  In a normal human interaction (perhaps a conversation between two people standing face to face) only 30% of the focus of one individual is spent on the actual words and meanings of the other. The other 70% of the energy devoted to interpreting the interaction is focused on body language, intonation, facial expression, and even the slight variations in smell of the other person.  What does this mean? It means conversations you have on facebook give you only a third of the required imput to fully understand someone. We make up for this by talking a hell of a lot more.  Which leads to longer time spent on a computer away from actual people. Which is what the creators wanted.  

"You either die a hero...or live long enough to see yourself become the villan."

I believe this leads to the inability to connect with people outside of a cyber world.  When you meet someone in person there is alot more information being thrown at you than in a typical online interaction. Ever met a very tech-savvy person who spend alot of time on computers yet has less than adequate people skills?  It is becasue they have spent so much time behind a tiny filter that only lets in the tiniest bit of information in at a time. Ergo they have lost (or never developed) the skills to interact and socialize with people in the realworld. 

(I love how much this same picture applies)
 Human contact is one of the basic requirements of life that is programmed in every human being at birth.  Facebook provides a substitute for the human needs of the company of others, and yet there is no true substitute.  This is how you create a situation where people are at home alone in the dark on a social networking site feeling like they are enjoying time with their friends. Or perhaps if that is a little radical of me, look at it like this, Take your favorite soda for example. (in my case Coca-cola) No other drink truly satisfies a craving for coke quite like an actual coke. There is diet, cherry, diet cherry, lime, diet lime, vanilla, cherry-vanilla, and a bunch of other off brands that try to sell you their product as being just as satisfying as the real thing, but it is never true. The same thing goes for actual human contact. There is no substitute.


Monday, September 13, 2010

I had an interesting postulation the other day while I was in the car with Mom (Tara), Reid, and Frank.  In reincarnation, what if when you die you are not reborn in the same time as when you died?  What if when i pass away i am reincarnated in a life that lived 500 years ago? What if the people you read about in history books are your relatives in past lives or you in a past life?  I know there are some out there who have already thought about this and come to different conclusions, but I find it a very revolutionary idea. 

Paul, John, Ringo, and George

This leads me to wonder if there are really that many souls in existence when you remove the illusion of time.  I think it is a staple of reincarnation that your souls cannot exist in the same time as the life you just left. (at least that is to someone with little knowlegde of the actual religious beliefs)  But I ask why is this so? Have you ever met someone you felt so intune with that many things just went unsaid? Or perhaps they seem to understand your sense of humor better than anyone else?  What if that is because it is you in another life?  When you die and are reborn what if you are reborn 6 months later than your last life was born?  And then you became friends with yourself?

This in my mind bring up the questions of love. In terms of a soul things like gender,race, an time are meaningless.  So what if all couples who experience true love are merely the same soul in two lives that happen to take place at the same time?  what if your parent IS YOU? 

"This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you"

You have to wonder now if maybe every single person is a different life of the same soul just hopping through time from one life 1000 years ago to right now to 25 years in the future and back again.  Maybe this explains the collective subconsious. Would it really be a Collective subconisous? Its all the same soul!

Your argument is invalid.
Now reflecting on what I have just wrote I can see where this can look a little chaos thoery esque, or maybe just depressing. But I want to dispell this negativity as it is infront of me. None of this idea makes any indiviual less special, in fact i see it as making everyone more special, ergo more important. Every life is a unique experience that adds to the collective soul thus furthering us toward whatever agenda a soul that is comprised of all human knowledge and experiences aspires to.


Thursday, September 2, 2010

Singular Afterlife: The key to social growth

In my history class the last few days we have been studying ancient cultures such as Mesopotamia and Egypt.  A common characteristic among these ancient peoples is their seemingly modern take on morals, equality, and basic human rights.  In both Egypt and Mesopotamia women were allowed to own property, engage in trade and business, and were for many parts acknowledged as equal to men.  This is something one very rarely seems throughout history, especially after Christianity in any form takes hold as a recognized religion.

Also if one looks at the concepts that have arisen out of theses societies, one would be astonished to see how many are an integral part of daily life even now.  The concept of a fair and considerate justice system with laws concerning the well being of widows and orphans and even slaves came from Hammurabi, the leader of Babylonia.  When one looks at the intricate legal system he created, one sees a founding structure to the one used in modern America. Laws concerning building codes, medical practices, domestic abuse, and slavery were common thousands of years ago. When one looks at early America and pretty much all of Europe until recently, they were lacking in these laws that enforced basic human rights. Now one could argue that it was the Evil Monarch that installed the institutions that kept peasants down and that once they were overthrown the people gave everyone equal rights and civil liberties but that, as history clearly shows, is wrong.  In fact Babylon was a MONARCHY.

THIS GUY loved his people.

Also the concept of Democracy came out of a polytheistic society (Ancient Greece) and women were allowed to be the financial equals as well as rulers in a place where the ruler WAS A LIVING GOD (Egypt). In contrast look at the extreme repression of women all throughout the monotheistic Christian Europe during the Dark ages. Now what caused these supposed ancient peoples to be so forward thinking when people hundreds of years later were so close-minded and hateful?  Was it just they happened to have fair and forward thinking rulers? Probably not. Was it their priests who pushed for just and fair treatment of their followers?  Also probably not. 

I believe it is in the basic structure of their concept of the afterlife that lead to so many of their advances in thinking and morality.  If you examine the fundamental differences on the views of the afterlife of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam  V.S.  The views of the previously mentioned societies, one notices that the polytheistic religions have relatively simple afterlives. By that I mean that in Ancient Egypt, or Greece, or Babylonia one didn't have to constantly worry about damnation and hellfire because everyone went to the same place.  This lead to people focusing more effort on their current lives, instead of working and toiling to make sure they got a spot in heaven.  Look at it this way, IF the afterlife is gonna suck, like the ancient Greeks believed, why not make being alive more livable? Because hey its not going to last so live it up while you can!

Pictured: the real reason communism is both favored by 20-somethings and doesn't work 

That's not to say Monotheistic religions are all bad, they've contributed something but it seems to be the equivalent of writing their name at the top of the page, after torturing and persecuting every one else that worked on the project.  In closing one has to wonder what purpose these monotheistic religions have served? How have they made us any better?  Ancient Egyptian men were loving and caring for their wives and children, not something that can be said about medieval father figures. What have our religions done for us that older religions didn't?  And here is a question  for you, How sure are you that Monotheistic Christian religions are any different from Ancient Polytheistic ones??

Heres a start.