me innerlife hyperwest get ur freak on archives

Thursday, December 27   And along that same vein, people who are less talented and virtuous should not expect or obligate the assistance of others either. The rights of everyone should be observed. Being more talented and capable does not mean that one's individual rights and desires are to be forfeited. posted by Tin   I don't know...it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around the duality of social responsibility and individual obligation. Leaning in one way or the other kind of dramatically alters the landscape of life. "Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be." -Thomas a Kempis- Everyone is weak and no one is perfect. Taking that into account, no one should have the authority to take selfish desires above the rights of others. posted by jon   It's no one's fault, but you have to admit that some people are just more talented and virtuous in comparison to the majority of people. Those people should be given free reign to create what they wish to create. posted by Tin   Can you truly be "better" though? I mean, its easy to pass judgement when you compare one facet of a person to another but everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. If a person's strength just so happens to be not as useful from a societal standpoint, whose fault is that? posted by jon   But then those betters are sacrificing their own talents and are subsequently suppressed and oftentimes oppressed by the masses of the lowest common denominator. How is that fair? To make a great man harness his gift so that he should not advance much above his peers. posted by Tin   But what about the Spiderman creedo of "with great power comes great responsibility?" Isn't that what makes the world go round and round? Shouldn't those who are more gifted use that gift to help everyone? Those who happen to be more gifted are randomly chosen (theoretically), one should not be given status and power due to a lucky bounce of the ball. Wouldn't it make for a much more stable and fair society if those "betters" used their talents to empower everyone as a whole? posted by jon   I would have to say that i believe that these more gifted men are responsible only for their own well being. It is not their lot in life to be yoked and shackled to those who are less capable and less gifted. I think the problem is not in the unevenness of talent and virtue among men but that talent and virture do not run in parallel lines and are not doled out in equal amounts, thus allowing for those who are highly capable but also highly devious. posted by Tin   "I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men...the grounds of this are virtue and talents." -Thomas Jefferson- I think deep down inside i agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It's difficult to reconcile this belief with a "everyone is created equal" worldview because in acknowledging that some men are more talented and virtuous, you are in a sense saying that some men are "better." I guess in a way that this statement is almost obvious in it's truth and that the whole fight for equality of opportunity is based on this fact. The problem in my mind arises however when i think about what the role of these "better" men should be in society. Are these better men compelled to use their gifts for the benefit of all or for the purpose of enhancing their own lives? posted by jon Wednesday, December 12   I don't know. I guess you're just gonna have to find out won't you? posted by Tin   What if i like the destination i am headed towards but not the journey? Does that count as happy? posted by jon   Yes but that wouldn't bring anybody happiness. It's the act of doing those goals that ultimately factors into happiness, not necessarily the achievement of them. If you don't like the journey you are undertaking, then the destination doesn't matter. posted by Tin   Well yeah but a happy slacker. I mean, happiness is hard enough to achieve as it is, why muddle it with self created goals and plans that are bestowed upon you for no other reason than to say that you accomplished something? I mean, i think someone could arbitrarly just set some goals and then be happy in their advancement towards those goals. posted by jon   aka....a directionless slacker. posted by Tin   Well yeah but innate joy is so much harder to capture. It's kind of depressing to see life as "set goal, meet goal, enjoy having met goal, rewind, play." I think however that is what happens when responsibility kicks in. Isn't responsibility all about having plans and goals and then having the drive to meet those goals? The only way that i can visualize having pure innate joy all the time is to be a free-spirit, able to roam and do things at anytime. posted by jon   Aren't you kind of forgetting that innate sense of pure joy that just comes from being happy? Happy isn't just "i got this accomplished, i feel good." A lot of times, accomplishing goals kind of leaves you with this empty feeling doesn't it? posted by Tin   What is this thing called happiness that everyone is trying to constantly achieve? The number one answer to what everyone wants to be when they grow up is....."happy." "I want to be happy". It's almost this deep question to ask someone if they are truly happy. But what is happy really aside from the completion of pre-determined goals? I mean, isn't that pretty much how we measure happiness? In terms of things crossed off our "To Do" list? I have a significant other. Check. I have a well paying, interesting job. Check. I have a nutritious diet. Check. I exercise three times a week. Check. I sleep six (or sixteen) hours a day. Check. I'm happy. Check. posted by jon Saturday, December 1   You're trying to fight thousands of years of natural and societal instinct? Ha, good luck. Tell me when you come up with a solution Romeo, until then i'll just play along by the normal set of rules. posted by Tin   Well, not really, i just think that right now i equate relationship with sacrifice and i am unable to come to grips with that. I think that there has to be something bigger and better. Then again, i obviously don't have a logical alternative yet, although i'm trying to figure one out. posted by jon   So basically your idea of an ideal state of being is to have a companion to traverse the world with, but yet not necessarily to be 100% dedicated to that person? That somehow strikes me as an impossibility. posted by Tin   Essentially i guess a relationship is what a companionship is about, but along the way you have to leave bread crumbs of trust behind so that the other person will be able to follow and understand that you care. I would like to think that this kind of thing can happen without the wave of sacrifice and change that a relationship demands. Oftentimes i feel that in searching for the "perfect one" you are often molding a person into that perfect image you want. And also at times there is a tendency to want to be left with tokens of sacrifice and compatibility. Isn't it possible to build that up by opening the metaphorical doors wider as opposed to closing them? If the only way to achieve security is to be shut into a room together than i would have to question exactly where that false sense of security comes from. posted by jon   You realize of course that what you are asking for is pretty much just friendship right? With an independent ability to move in and out of each other's lives at will. You say a companion but isn't that essentially what a relationship is? Someone to watch movies with, to talk to, to go through life together, hand in hand, attached at the hip, talking in one voice, thinking as one? posted by Tin   I mean i feel like that once you become a label, there are tendencies to want to be possessive and to want to create a union between two independent beings. Decisions often become "we" and "us" instead of "you" and "me." I'm not sure if my mindset and philosophies are capable of sustaining a full fledged relationship of sacrifice and commitment. I feel like oftentimes you are faced with the choice of giving up a part of yourself in order to mesh completely with the significant other. Some of my friends are willing to do this and that sounds so crazy to me. posted by jon   Wait...you want a companion to be there and yet you're unwilling to give total commitment? How does that work and where can i sign up? posted by Tin   Today i want to talk about relationships. The girl and boy variety. Forget the question of if girls and guys can be friends...i've recently had the chance to have some discussion and thought about what i want for the future. I decided that i may not necessarily want a wife in the traditional sense. I sort of want a companion, someone to always be there. The thought of a full on marriage with total commitment sort of frightens me. posted by jon   powered by blogger   << x BlogxPhiles x >>

the wizard our naive protagonist. think harry potter. but older. and not as cool. the wizard has feelings and emotions and all of that human bs. the wizard is lost, lonely, and curious. aren't you? tin man the batman to the wizard's robin, the jordan to wiz's pippen, the britney to the wizard's justin, the skipper to the wizard's gilligan, the jon to the george...yeah, you get it. the tin man is stronger, faster, and more powerful than any locomotive. but he's not real. just a heartless, soulless, practical machine. who happens to talk.